I've read a lot of posts discussing the virtues of the "investing in equities" strategy versus "100 percent cash" versus various combinations and permutations of the above. As for myself, I've been nearly 100 percent cash for many years -- for no better reason than it is the only strategy that fits my comfort zone. I have no doubt that my nestegg would be larger had I invested more in stock, but I would have been miserably during times such as these. Some have suggested that a 100 percent cash allocation simply won't generate enough income to fund a lengthy retirement. That's not entirely true. It will work -- you just need to start with a larger nest egg. While $1M might do the trick if you invest aggressively in stocks, it might require $1.5 or even $2M to ensure a retirement based on ultra conservative investments. For peace of mind, I deliberately chose the path less travelled by. Barring a catastrophic meltdown of the entire financial system -- rendering savings worthless -- I'm counting on a nestegg consisting of cash and cash equivalents (about $1.6M) plus a small cola'd pension ($20k/yr) to see me through to the end. The point is I don't believe either strategy (emphasizing stocks or cash) is necessarily superior -- there is aways a tradeoff. Retiring on a stock portfolio requires less capital, but also requires a stronger stomach. Retiring on cash significantly dampens the risk, but requires a substantially larger nest egg. Take your pick -- in my view both are legitimate strategies.