What percentage would you put in to stock if you don't need the money to live on. Is the reason for lowering your stock/bond percent because you need it to live on and you want a more secure investment?
Would you feel comfortable leaving ratio at 80/20 in your late years of life if you really don't need it to live on?
I think it depends on your goals. Honestly, the only reason I can think to put that much in stock in my late years is because I intend that money to be an inheritance. And perhaps taking the dividends as income in the meantime, or reinvesting them for the heirs.
Personally, I would rather gift funds I was really sure I didn't need while I was still living and the recipient had more time to enjoy those funds.
The main reason I don't have that kind of equity exposure now is because we aren't in our later years, and we are drawing income off our investments. I don't care to take more equity exposure than I have to to meet my portfolio survival goals.
I'm 57, DH is 61, and we are around 53/42/5. I don't see dropping below 40% equities, but I don't really see going above 60% either. 40 to 60% equities is a sweet spot for a rebalanced portfolio, looking at the studies. (Some say 50% to 75%). Survival starts to roll off a bit once you approach 80% or drop under 40% looking at results like the Trinity study for a 30 year retirement. Clearly the higher the equity % the higher the long-term performance, but also the higher the volatility and the larger drawdown in any given year.
We don't have children and leaving a large legacy is not important to us. On the other hand, we do gift to siblings and their families, and plan to do so while we are alive rather than them having to wait until we croak. But we are conservative about that too, because we still (hopefully - knock on wood) have decades left, and who knows what kind of emergency could arise over that period of time that means we dip into our investments.
This is something I imagine we will be evaluating each decade.
