When the market crashes, should I sell bonds and buy equities for the inevitable recovery?
When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean. "The problem with the proposed plan is the word ""inevitable"". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again.  Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess.  So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are." "In a comment you say,  if the market crashes, doesn't ""regress to the mean"" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No.  Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%.  The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected.  Consider a series:   The running average is  That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%.   Real markets actually go farther than this though.  Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently.  Then market prices may revert to the real value.  This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002.  Then the market started climbing again in 2003.  In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002.  And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years.  That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio.  Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years.   Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble.  The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value.  So 2003 was a good year for stocks.  But the three year return was still -11%.  In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003.  But no one knew that in 2000.  People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble.   The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean.  It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average.  Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks.  But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall.   Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds.  30% is better.  And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough).  Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents.  The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much).  This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses.  Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents.  Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations.  Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up.   It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years.  A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone.  Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks.  And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance."
"Nobody has a ""crash proof"" portfolio -- you can make it ""crash resistant"". You protect against a crash by diversifying and not reacting out of fear when the markets are down. Be careful about focusing on the worst possible scenario (US default) vs. the more likely scenarios. Right now, many people think that inflation and interest rates are heading up -- so you should be making sure that your bond portfolio is mostly in short-duration bonds that are less sensitive to rate risk. Another risk is opportunity cost. Many people sold all of their equities in 2008/2009, and are sitting on lots of money in cash accounts. That money is ""safe"", but those investors lost the opportunity to recoup investments or grow -- to the tune of 25-40%." "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!" It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value. "First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a ""crash"" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your ""trigger"", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever." The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe.  However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way.  Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves.  Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets.  There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns.  Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in. "At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts.  Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question.  I seek high return rather than protection of principal.  If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover.  But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like.  If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars).  Will you have low or high monthly  expenses?  Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties?   Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year.  You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund.  You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years.  You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times.  Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies.  There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities.  In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say ""how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire""?  The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future.  You are off to a good start.  Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting.  The rest will follow.  After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future." Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what   are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin.  As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments.  I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often.  It's a fact of life.  If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale.  With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them. "The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea.  Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk.  So yes, you should buy corporate bonds.  Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset.  You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not.  Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free.  They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise.  Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can.  If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks).  Otherwise you will need to choose your weights.  Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be.  That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject.  But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an ""anchor,"" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really.  Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now.  Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons.  You want expected returns, you must take risk." "Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - ""growing economy"" High growth and high inflation - ""overheating economy"" Low growth and high inflation - ""stagflation"" Low growth and low inflation - ""recession"" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns." Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month.  Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance.  Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested.  We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years.  If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner. "There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say ""now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back."" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money." Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses.  As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level   of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since   the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to   consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other   Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing,   higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not   be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund   may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal   and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks. You're wise to consider mitigating risks considering your age and portfolio size, but 'in' and 'out' are so reductive and binary. Why not be both? Leave some in and let it ride, providing growth but taking risk. Put some in bonds, where it'll earn more than cash and maybe zig when stocks zag. I applaud you for calling the last two crashes, but remember: a lot of people called them. Jeremy Bentham called the dot com bubble *years* in advance - of course, he got out too early, and the investors in his funds suffered for it. Timing means getting the sell and the buy right, which very few can do. Hence my advice to hold a balanced portfolio or *if you really do have the golden touch* make use of that ability and get rich - no need to work a 9 to 5 if you can call market crashes accurately. Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world.  Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer.  A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors.  You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay.  So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.