Risk tolerance as I age
You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)
Congratulations on deciding to save for retirement. Since you cite Dave Ramsey as the source of your 15% number, what does he have to say about where to invest the money? If you want to have instantaneous penalty-free access to  your retirement money, all you need to do is set up one or more ordinary accounts that you think of  as your retirement money. Just be careful not to  put the money into CDs since Federal law requires a penalty of three months interest if you cash in the CD before its maturity date (penalty!) or put the money into those pesky mutual funds that charge a redemption fee (penalty!) if you take the money out within x months of investing it where x can be anywhere from 3 to 24 or more. In Federal tax law (and in most state tax laws as well) a retirement account has special privileges accorded to it in that the interest, dividends, capital gains, etc earned on the money in your retirement account are not taxed in the year earned (as they would be in a non-retirement account), but the tax is  either deferred till you withdraw money from the  account (Traditional IRAs, 401ks etc) or is waived completely (Roth IRAs, Roth 401ks etc). In return for this special treatment, penalties are imposed (in addition to tax) if you withdraw money from your retirement account before age 59.5 which presumably is on the distant horizon for you. (There are some exceptions (including first-time home buying and extraordinary medical expenses) to this rule that I won't bother going into). But You are not required to invest your retirement   money into such a specially privileged retirement   account. It is perfectly legal to keep your retirement money   in an ordinary savings account if you wish, and pay taxes on the   interest each year.  You can invest your retirement   money into municipal bonds whose interest is free of   Federal tax (and usually free of state tax as well   if the municipality is located in your state of   residence) if you like. You can keep your retirement money in a   sock under your mattress if you like, or buy a   collectible item (e.g. a painting) with it   (this is not permitted in an IRA), etc. In short, if you are concerned about the penalties imposed by retirement accounts on early withdrawals, forgo the benefits of these accounts and put your retirement money elsewhere where there is no penalty for instant access.  If you use a money management program such as Mint or Quicken, all you need to do is name one or more accounts or a portfolio as MyRetirementMoney and voila, it is done. But those accounts/portfolios don't have to be retirement accounts in the sense of tax law; they can be anything at all. "This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk.  Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for ""stock bond age"" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but ""past results are no guarantee of future performance"". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point." 1. It doesn't have an almost perfect negative correlation - its value decays very fast because of time.  In fact, something like 80% of options expire worthless.  They typically have a lifespan of 30-90 days and unless you're using them as a way to earn excess return, you'll likely just throw away your premium.  2. You're also making some assumptions about correlation and risk/reward.  You won't become wealthy by distributing risk, all you can hope for is less volatility - maybe that's what you're looking for - but you can also expect your return to be less than the market over almost any period of time.  3. Options aren't really for diversifying.  Furthermore, why diversify?  It's a myth that it adds any value.  There's around a 90% correlation for all asset classes since around 2000, so you're being sold some blue sky if someone tells you otherwise.  4. Look up prices of put options.  1-2% of your portfolio might buy you a handful of options, but again, there's a high probability you'll lose that 1-2% entirely every 30-90 days. "Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results -  This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other.  Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)?  I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss.  All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first.  Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors.  (To answer the question in advance - ""Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?"" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)" "First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been ""losing/feels dangerous"" and put more in when it is ""winning/feels safe"", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!" Short Answer: Length of Time invested and risk should be correlated. From what I am hearing this is pretty good game plan for your age.   Minutia: Once you get closer to retirement lets say in 20 years.  You might want to treat two lumps of money with different risk.  For me at 49 I have a lump of money for 55-70 that carries a lot less risk then another lump of money for when I hit 80. This way I can wait and take Social Security at 70 when it pays the most per month.  Then I'll have another pile of money for when my care costs start being very expensive.    Or I think most people would benefit from making sure you have the funds you need for the next 5 years in items with extremely low risk and funds you need 6 years out or more you can have some risk tolerance there. Best laid plans though. "You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources.  Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach ""certain safety"" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on." "You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation).  That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing:  a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the ""investment porn"" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries.  Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor  Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com." "Nobody has mentioned your ""risk tolerance"" and  ""investment horizon"" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation." "Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age.  This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc).  If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans.  (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two.  Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older.  You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules.  The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk.  There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept.  #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is ""100 minus your age"".  This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks.  If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock.  Over the years, the ""100"" number has varied.  Some financial advisor types have suggested ""150"" or ""200"".  Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly.  At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild.  Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation.  If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary.  (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options.  I do suggest that your focus on selecting a ""passive"" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like ""total market"" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies.  (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.)  The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision.  A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices.  Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments.  There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio).  However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/" 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's really not. You have to realize that current rates are an outlier. The average on the 10yr since 1960 is 6.7%. Even on the 1yr it's still 5.7%. The average on the 30Yr from '77-present is 7.6%. You can use your own discretion about the length of time to consider for the average, but you don't just take the current rate as the risk free rate. I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.) 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. "In my opinion, the key variable for you (and others) is not age, but ""vintage."" Your ""age"" suggests that you were born in the mid-1980s, in the middle of a bull market. The most remunerative investing periods for you are likely to be in your childhood (past) and middle age (forties and early fifties). Also your, ""old-old"" period (around age 80, in the 2060s), if you live that long. For now, you can, and perhaps should invest cautiously, like today's 40-year olds, with a heavy emphasis on bonds. The main difference between you and them is that you can shift to stocks in about ten years, in your mid to late 30s, while they will find it harder to do so when approaching old age."