Re: Balanced portfolio with index funds

The reason I referred to it as the rule of 100, that it is a term used in a
variety of intro texts.

The important idea from your post to the original post is that you found a
strategy and stuck with it, you seem to understand the risks you are
accepting for your returns.

Good luck in the future.

"Dave Dodson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There is nothing "magic" about the number 100 in the "rule of 100."
> You could just as well use the number 125.
>
> I personally was 100% invested in equities until age 50. That is, I
> was following the "Rule of 150." At age 50, I started reducing my
> exposure to equities and increasing the bond portion of my portfolio.
> At age 61, I have 55% domestic equities, 10% foreign equities, 30%
> bonds, and 5% cash. I expect to maintain that asset allocation for
> many years to come, as I feel quite comfortable with it. Thus, my
> current rule could be called the "rule of 126."
>
> The key to successful investing for the long term is to know yourself
> well. Many people would not feel comfortable with my asset allocation.
> They would have felt great discomfort in 2000, 2001, and 2002,
> possibly making irrational decisions regarding their investments. For
> them, the "Rule of 100" or even the "Rule of 80" might be more
> appropriate.
>
> Dave
>
> "BMS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > There is the rule of 100. Take 100 subtract your age, the difference is
the
> > percentage that should be in equities and the rest in fixed income.
> >
> > However what you are proposing is not close to a balanced retirement
plan.
> > Having all your retirement in 2 types of funds, a large cap index and a
bond
> > fund. Go look at some asset allocation models and compare them to your
risk
> > tolerance profile. Up to 95% of your return can be linked to proper
asset
> > allocation.
>