ER Eddie
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,788
Hi, folks. A quick question about asset allocation. Fidelity's analysis of my profile gave me the feedback that my AA was too high for someone my age. It said that most people my age have a more conservative asset allocation, and that I was potentially exposing myself to too much risk.
My AA is 65/35 (65/33/2, to be more exact), with most everything in low-cost index funds. I'm retired completely. I'm 59 years old.
The Fidelity input caught me a little off guard. I wondered, "Am I exposing myself to too much risk? Should I adjust my AA?"
So, I'm just seeking input about that. I believe, in the past, the consensus on this forum has been that any AA between 50/50 and 80/20 is fine, and it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. So it's possible that the answer to this question is, "It doesn't matter."
I'll add a couple things for context. I am moderate-conservative by nature, including in my dealings with money. I don't need to maximize returns or pile up more money (although my portfolio has been doing very well, and I'm happy about that). I picked 65/35 as a target because 1) I heard John Bogle mention it as working in most cases; 2) it's a halfway point between my waffle range of 60/40 and 70/30, and 3) when I was at 60/40, my CPA told me I was too young to have so much money in bonds (that was two years ago; now apparently I'm too old to have so much money in stocks, lol).
TLDR: Fidelity is telling me 65/35 is too risky for an old coot like me (59). Do you think that's right? Should I be more conservative with my AA?
My AA is 65/35 (65/33/2, to be more exact), with most everything in low-cost index funds. I'm retired completely. I'm 59 years old.
The Fidelity input caught me a little off guard. I wondered, "Am I exposing myself to too much risk? Should I adjust my AA?"
So, I'm just seeking input about that. I believe, in the past, the consensus on this forum has been that any AA between 50/50 and 80/20 is fine, and it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. So it's possible that the answer to this question is, "It doesn't matter."
I'll add a couple things for context. I am moderate-conservative by nature, including in my dealings with money. I don't need to maximize returns or pile up more money (although my portfolio has been doing very well, and I'm happy about that). I picked 65/35 as a target because 1) I heard John Bogle mention it as working in most cases; 2) it's a halfway point between my waffle range of 60/40 and 70/30, and 3) when I was at 60/40, my CPA told me I was too young to have so much money in bonds (that was two years ago; now apparently I'm too old to have so much money in stocks, lol).
TLDR: Fidelity is telling me 65/35 is too risky for an old coot like me (59). Do you think that's right? Should I be more conservative with my AA?