How aggressive should my personal portfolio be?
You're completely missing the most important thing you can do: minimize fees. "Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns.  One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta.   Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees.   Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility.  Its more important as to when the money is to be available.  If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account.  Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age.  They are expected to have 50K per year expenses.  If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be ""aggressive"" with any remaining money.     On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years.  Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative.   Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments.  As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place.  Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice."
"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic.   If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately.  I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals.  My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is ""age in bonds,"" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it.  Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know.  I don't give the ""notion in the investment community"" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is." "Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word ""core"" or ""S&P"" in the name.  Maybe add ""International Large Cap Index"".  Leave it & rebalance occasionally.  Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years." At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time.  The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds.  You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds.  Why?  Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return.  Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds.   A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier.  Why?  Because sometimes bonds fall.  And when they do, stocks generally gain.  And vice versa.  Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds.   Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%?  No.  If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%.  The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well.  So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3.   If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination.  But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety.   At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund.  This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income.  I recommend making it equal to six months of your income.  The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses.  Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two.   Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years?  At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no.  But the standard is the five year time frame.  If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no.  If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses.  Less than five years, the reverse is true.  So you should probably rent now.   You can max out your 401k and IRA now.  Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven.  And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down.  The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend.   Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house.  I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  A REIT will tend to track real estate.  Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety.  It fell in value?  Houses are probably cheap.  Houses increasing in price rapidly?  A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds.  You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty. This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example. There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation). "Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds.  You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches.  Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday.  Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never ""have to recover"" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing.  (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.)  A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up.  Some ""recovery"" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term).  Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds." "The raw question is as follows:  ""You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.""   The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation.  Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks." I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts.   I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close.   I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds.  That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20. A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.) "Just an FYI, this can be a risky move. Unless you have been in the industry for a while, or are extremely well averse in investment management/research, keep it pretty short. In a lot of ways, you might want to think about tailoring it more like a sell-side report. Also, make sure you understand the style of investing the PM/company you are applying to likes.   The reason I say this is because every buy-side shop is different. Some do 1-2 page write-ups with models and walk through's, others will expect 60 page ""decks"" (i.e. Powerpoints). The longer the deck, the more you have that can go wrong. If one tiny thing is wrong, or you have a typo anywhere, it hurts you more than it helps that you wrote something long (I once had the wrong rating on one issuance of a bond ladder I was pitching; it's all the PM's focused on).  The more important aspect is that you understand the shop you are applying to and then tailoring the pitch to them. For example, don't do a growth tech company with an 80x forward P/E if you're applying to a fundamental value shop. It shows you didn't do research on the firm you're applying to and that you won't fit the culture. This is part of why I was saying that this can be a risky move, if the firm is large enough to have an HR department, they likely have a lot of different investment styles in house.  Finally, try to keep it to a small/mid-cap company. Analysts/PMs follow stocks all day long and will most likely have an opinion on 99% of large caps, no matter the sector.  In summary, I'd recommend a 1-2 page sell-side style write-up with a backup model (printed excel file). KISS (keep it simple stupid), have a summary, couple years worth of historical's, 2 years forward, and a few main bullet points of why you like them. In your case, this pitch should be something to pique the interest so that you can NAIL a real pitch in the interview. If you get an interview, know everything about everything in the industry as well as that specific company. For example, lets say you do a smartphone secular theme investment. Do you know what outstanding AAPL/Android cases there are, and more importantly, how would each ruling likely affect the marketplace? This is because I can guarantee if you're pitching to another tech guy, he knows and has an educated opinion on it. Also, in many cases having a great model can mean more than a long write-up, it shows that you're good with numbers and can think about FUTURE earnings, which are all that matter.  Last point, IMO you'd be better off trying to get your foot in the door through networking than HR. HR doesn't really do much on the buy-side with recruiting and won't really understand what to look for in a good pitch (they're HR after-all, not an analyst). Try to meet someone over coffee and then have a pitch READY to bring out/discuss. The buy-side is selective enough that usually when positions open up it's either because they are creating one for you or they already have an idea of who is going to fill it. This mean HR has little to no say in helping you get in. You'll have a lot more success this way than blasting to a bunch of HR emails." So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of   compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock   market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds! Finance noob here.  Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good?    If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)?    &gt;he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game  So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies?  Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad? It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here.  A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments.  My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities.  Government bonds earn way too little.  The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity.  I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it.  My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people.  If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap.  If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc. This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk. Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an   equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past,   and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with   such a premium.  ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6   percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return   differential in most circumstances over longer time periods.   Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must   dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower   expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath   construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand   risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both   their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For   younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth   is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human   capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger   person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk   exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate   glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various   financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We   examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential   implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.