Is the stock market too risky for long term retirement funds? Why should a 20- or 30-something person invest in stocks?
"I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the ""safe"" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common.  Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking." Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out. The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile.  During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down.  However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it).  If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008.  There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about).  Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks?  Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in). I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors.  The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person.  For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice. I'm going to go the contrarian route and suggest you stay completely out of the stock market for the foreseeable future. We're entering a period of time this country and world has never seen before. Our country is broke / insolvent. We are printing money to buy our own debt. This is beyond stupid. It will destroy us, just like it did Germany in the 1920's. Many states are on the verge of bankruptcy. The only thing stopping them is a constitutional issue. California, Illinois, Michigan, New York etc. are all broke. They are billions in debt and massive underfunding of pensions.  More than a half-dozen European countries are on the verge of financial implosion. The Euro is just as bad off as our dollar. There are extremely powerful forces at work bent on destroying this country and the US dollar, to usher in a One World Government and financial system.  IMO, buy as much gold and silver has you can. Not necessarily as an investment vehicle. I would do it as a survival vehicle. And, I don't mean gold/silver stocks. I mean you buy gold/silver and you take physical possession.
The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough.  If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves. "First, I'd recommend that you separate ""short-term"" assets from ""long-term"" assets in your head.  Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund.  These should be kept in cash or short bond funds.   Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years.  Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon.  These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less.   Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks.  I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation.  Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards.  Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity.  The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation.  Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is." I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money. "Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc).  This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a ""high net worth"" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!" "I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way.  Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a ""high growth"" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!" Your reaction to bad news is the greatest risk. Are you going to panic and pull all your money out when the market falls 20%? It will. Someday it will. The question is, will you have the stomach to stay the course and keep your money invested when the sky is falling and everyone is screaming that things are definitely going to get worse? If not, the timing of when you invest will matter not at all. My advice: Go all in ASAP. Remember that you don't care where the market is in 2 years. You're in your mid 40's, you care where the market is in 20 years. And 20 years from now, when you're in your mid 60's, you'll be caring about where the market is even further into the future. It has got to do with the irrationality of humans.  The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in.  It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it.  They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing. The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash.  If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity. 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. "I feel that OP's question is fundamentally wrong and an understanding of why is important. The stock market, as a whole, in the USA has an average annualized return of 11%. That means that a monkey, throwing darts at a board, can usually turn 100K into over three million in thirty-five years. (The analog I'm drawing is a 30-year old with 100K randomly picking stocks will be a multi-millionaire at 65). So to be ""good"" at investing in the stock market, you need to be better than a monkey. Most people aren't. Why? What mistakes do people make and how do you avoid them? A very common mistake is to buy high, sell low. This happened before and after the 08's recession. People rushed into the market beforehand as it was reaching its peak, sold when the market bottomed out then ignored the market in years it was getting 20+% returns. A Bogle approach for this is to simply consistently put a  part of your income into the market whether it is raining or shining. Paying high fees. Going back to the monkey example, if the monkey charges you a 2% management fees, which is low by Canadian standards, the monkey will cost you one million dollars over the course of the thirty-five years. If the monkey does a pretty good job it is a worthy expenditure. But most humans, including professional stock pickers, are worst than a monkey at picking stocks. Another mistake is adjusting your plan. Many people, when the market was giving bull returns before the 08's crash happily had a large segment of their wealth in stocks. They thought they were risk tolerant. Crash happened, they moved towards bonds. Then bonds returns were comically low while stocks soared. Had they had a plan, almost any consistent plan, they'd have done better. Another genre of issues is just doing stupid things. Don't buy that penny stock. Don't trade like crazy. Don't pay 5$ commission on a 200$ stock order. Don't fail to file your taxes.  Another mistake, and this burdens a lot of people, is that your long-term investments are for long-term investing. What a novel idea. You're 401K doesn't exist for you to get a loan for a home. Many people do liquidate their long-term savings. Don't. Especially since people who do make these loans or say ""I'll pay myself back later"" don't." Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence.  However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing.  If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one.   However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably.  If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals.  This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings.  This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat:  Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'.  It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner. Bad question.  Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward.  But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period.  http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif "This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it.  By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions.  But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution.  I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things ""average out"" over time.  If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical.  Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return.  You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion.  When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks?  In many cases, less risks.  This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills).  When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk.  Buying risky securities adds to that risk.  When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky.  You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so.  But I can't be sure." None of the previous answers calls out an important factor to residential property ownership bias towards individual investors. The amount of time spent managing (leasing, maintenance and rent collection) on single properties is much higher, per property, than larger investments. But what is mentioned in passing is the bias towards smaller investments. Fewer individuals have the capital to purchase and engage in the leasing of multi-tenant properties, but they are more likely to have the funds for smaller investments. So the smaller investor can both afford the entry costs, and the time investment, while the larger corporate entities benefit from the opposite proposition. The best way to start out is to know that even the experts typically under-perform the market, so you have no chance.  Your best bet is to invest in diversified funds, either through something like Betterment or something like Vanguard's ETFs that track the markets.  Buying individual stocks isn't typically a winning strategy.