What is the best asset allocation for a retirement portfolio, and why?
"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio.  I agree 110%.  If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each.  From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice.  Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc.  Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago.  Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, ""The Nature of the Portfolio"", that address some of the points you've asked about.  All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation   process] is not really that hard:  The   investor only makes two important   decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a   higher portion of stocks because they   have the ability to apply their   regular savings to the markets at   depressed prices.  More precisely,   young investors possess more ""human capital"" than financial capital;   that is, their total future earnings   dwarf their savings and investments.    From a financial perspective, human   capital looks like a bond whose   coupons escalate with inflation.      Page 78: The most important asset allocation   decision is the overall stock/bind   mix; start with age = bond allocation   rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance.  If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are   purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets]     This process, called ""rebalancing,""   provides the investor with an   automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually –   but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction   is the combination of asset classes   that move in different directions at   least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future   allocation, which offers the maximum   return for the minimum risk?  No, but   people still try.   [...   continues with description of   Markowitz's ""mean-variance analysis""   technique...]   It took   investment professionals quite a while   to realize that limitation of   mean-variance analysis, and other   ""black box"" techniques for allocating   assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)" "This turned out be a lot longer than I expected.  So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter.  Only you know how much risk you are willing to take.  You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk.  However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion.  Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics.  There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question.  There are no easy ways around this.  You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur.  Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not?  Simply put, developing markets are very risky.  Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk.  How much is ""too much"" is ultimately subjective.  Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble.  Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets.  So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that.  However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky.  One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets.  Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market.  Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk.  Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride.  Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies?  I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses.  They can seriously eat into the returns.  There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500.  All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily.  As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years.  Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse.  This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years.  As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return.  Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself.  I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement.  A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms.  The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor.  However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice.  That said, it may still be a good place to get started.  You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing.  Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.  One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases.   In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or ""pops"" thus the term ""bubble"") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants.  An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly.  Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop.   Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets.  So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well.  This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies.  I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus.   As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them.  The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice.  A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt.  (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they ""spammed"" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away.  As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing.  Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it.  You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level.  What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion.  Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise).  Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing.   If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it.  (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.)  If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary.  Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy.  Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting ""paid"" with reputation on this site).  However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself.  Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves.  As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns.  The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale.  When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation.  One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies.  While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else.  The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider.  If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed.  The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself.  Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did.  Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.)  At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off.  Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing.   If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund.  I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe.  The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself.  In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about ""beating"" the market." "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/" It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business).  Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail. The best asset allocation is one that lets you sleep well at night. Can you stomach a loss of 50% and hold on to that asset for 3 years, 5 years, or however long it will take to bounce back while everyone is telling you to sell it at a loss? All these calculations will be thrown out the window at the next market panic. You've probably been in situations where everyone's panicking and the market seems upside down and there are no rules. Most people think they'll stay rational, but unless you've been through a market panic, you don't really know how you'll react. Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund.  Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX).  You will sleep well at night for most of your life.
"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to ""buy low, sell high"". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)" Look through the related questions.  Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year.  Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls.  Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds.  Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many.  jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger.  He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares.  I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early).  Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit:  Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most.  Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be.  If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return). I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible.  The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher.  Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals. "Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. ""US-LC"" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. ""Intl-Dev"" is international stocks from developed economies, ""Emer"" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals." "First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: ""target retirement,"" ""lifecycle,"" ""balanced,"" ""conservative/moderate allocation."" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some ""mental accounting"" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund." "It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow.  Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like ""am I saving enough for retirement"", and ""have I paid off my debt"", then the question becomes a little more murky.  First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that.  However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you.  One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace." "Here is the ""investing for retirement"" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a ""rollover IRA"" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a ""traditional IRA"" or ""Roth IRA"") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)" The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought].  But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great.  High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people).  You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each.  If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market.  If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio.  This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset?  A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks.  People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be.  The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds.  These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds.  But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense. Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation.  With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered? "Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked.  Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A ""whole market"" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re ""risk free"". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)" "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." "A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at ""dry periods"" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan ""relies"" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?" The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification. "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!" "A bank is a technology that allows society to consume now at the expense of later.  Think about it this way: to consume later at the expense of now, all you have to do is save your stuff. If you want to eat pizza in a year, you can buy a bunch of pizza now, freeze it, then eat it a year later.  Or you can hide money under your mattress now, and buy pizza a year later from now.  But what if you want to eat pizza now, but you don't have the money to buy it? Well, you're stuck. There's no time travel: you can't go into the future and get resources from your future self to buy the pizza now with!  Well, you could go to your wealthy friend who has a lot of pizza, and say, hey, if you give me pizza/money now, I will pay you back with more later! Except then your ability to get pizza/money depends on the whims of some really wealthy people who may not like you. And what if your wealthy friend really wants to keep all of his pizza? There is nothing you can do to get it now.  A bank is an entity that can provide the resources/purchasing power for you to get your pizza now *without anyone in the economy eating less now as a result*.   It does this via what is known as ""Fractional Reserve Banking,"" which is pretty simple. I borrow $100 from person A, keep $10 in reserve, then lend the remaining $90 to person B, who deposits it back into his bank. I keep $9 of person B's deposit in reserve, then lend $89 to person C, who deposits it in the bank, and so on and so forth. The total amount of purchasing power I can create is $1000 out of the initial $100 I borrowed from person A. As long as all my depositors don't all try to get their money out at once, society can essentially ""cheat time"" by pretending there is $1000 in existence when in reality there is only $100. Thus I have increased the purchasing power of the economy now at the expense of later (when the loans have to be repaid), and no one has to stop consuming now for me to do it!  Note that this is not the typical academic answer. Neoclassical economists will say that banks are ""mere intermediaries"" between savers and borrowers.   They are wrong. Banks provide the ability to consume now at the expense of later *even if no one in society is saving now*. That means when there is lots of lending going on, that we have an economic boom. But when there is little to no lending going on, and people are paying back their debts, we don't have as much (if any) growth."