Asset allocation when retirement is already secure
he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing. "As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've ""won the game"" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of ""comfortably"" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. ""Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?""), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to ""leave a legacy"" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a ""dream"" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your ""needs"" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask ""if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative"", but of course if it's ""too conservative"" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's ""conservative enough"". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so." "You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources.  Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach ""certain safety"" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on."
"The standard interpretation of ""can I afford to retire"" is ""can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal."" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular.  A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for ""self-insuring"" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, ""ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.""" Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund.  In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes.  There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out! "To expand a bit on @MSalters's answer ... When I read your question title I assumed that by ""retirement funds"" you meant target-date funds that are close to their target dates (say, the 2015 target fund).  When I saw that you were referring to all target-date funds, it occurred to me that examining how such funds modify their portfolios over time would actually help answer your question. If you look at a near-term target fund you can see that a smaller percent is invested internationally, the same way a smaller percent is invested in stocks.  It's because of risk.  Since it's more likely that you will need some of the money soon, and since you'll be cashing out said money in US Dollars, it's risky to have too much invested in foreign currencies.  If you need money that's currently invested in a foreign currency and that currency happens to be doing poorly against USD at the moment, then you'll lose money simply because you need it now. This is the same rationale that goes into target-date funds' moving from stocks to bonds over time.  Since the value of a stock portfolio has a lot more natural volatility than the value of a bond portfolio, if you're heavily invested in stocks when you need to withdraw money, there's a higher probability that you'll need to cash out just when stocks happen to be doing relatively poorly.  Being invested more in bonds around when you'll need your money is less risky. Similarly, being more invested in US dollars than in foreign currencies around when you'll need your money is also less risky." "Depends on your definition of ""secure"". The most ""secure"" investment from a preservation of principal point of view is a non-tradable, general obligation government bond. (Like a US or Canadian savings bond.) Why? There is no interest rate risk -- you can't lose money. The downside is that the rate is not so good. If you want returns and a reasonably high level of security, you need a diversified portfolio." "The topic you are apparently describing is ""safe withdrawal rates"", more here. Please, note that the asset allocation is crucial decision with your rates. If you continue to keep a lot in cash, you cannot withdraw too much money ""to live and to travel"" because the expected return from cash is too low in the long run. In contrast, if you moved to more sensible decision like 30% bonds and 70% world portfolio -- the rates will me a lot different. As you are 30 years old, you could pessimist suppose to live next 100 years -- then your possible withdrawal rates would be much lower than let say over 50 years. Anyway besides deciding asset allocation, you need to estimate the time over which you need your assets. You have currently 24% in liquid cash and 12% in bonds but wait you use the word ""variety of funds"" with about 150k USD, what are they? Do you have any short-term bonds or TIPS as inflation hedge? Do you miss small and value? What is your sector allocation between small-med-large and value-blend-growth? If you are risk-averse, you could add some value small. Read the site, it does much better job than any question-answer site can do (the link above)." Your approach sounds solid to me.  Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds.  That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever).  And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds.  In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc. This article completely misses a big part of his portfolio. He's a congressmen entitled to a full pension. He's guaranteed a 100k+ salary for the rest of his life. He's completely insured against deflation!   So if you've got a full pension that's insuring you against deflation than you want the majority of your other assets protecting you against inflation. It's a sound decision. "It depends what you mean. Finance Independence and Retirement Early (FI/RE) are two overlapping ideas. If you plan to retire early and spend the same amount of money every year (adjusted for inflation), then you need to save twenty-times your yearly spending to satisfy the 4% Safe Withdrawal rule of thumb. Carefully notice I say ""yearly spending"" and not income.  I'm unaware how it is in Pakistan, but in America, people who retire in their sixties tend to reduce their spending by 30%. This is for a host of reasons like not eating out as much, not driving to work, paid off mortgages, and their children being adults now. In this type of profile, a person needs to save 17.5x yearly spending. This numbers presume a person will only use their built assets as an income source. Any programs like a government pension acting as a safety net. If you factor those in, the estimates above become smaller." "To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an ""investment""; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to ""appreciate"" in the future because they are ""undervalued"" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return." 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! "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.)" "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 :-)" In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before. 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. "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?"