Are long-term bonds risky assets?
Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course.  Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy. "In the quoted passage, the bonds are ""risky"" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances.  In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low." AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it. "In truth there is no such thing as a risk-free asset.  That is why your textbook feels the need to add the qualifier ""for practical purposes,"" meaning that the risk of a money market account is so much lower than virtually any other asset class that it can reasonably be approximated as risk free. The main risk of any bond, short-term or long-term, is that its price may change before the maturity date.  This could happen for one of many reasons, such as interest rate changes, creditworthiness, market risk tolerance, and so on.  Thus you may lose money if you need to redeem your investment ahead of the scheduled maturity." Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons:  return on principal, or return of principal.  The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise.  The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless.  Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).
It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term.  The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss.  If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce.  It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured. Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one.  Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan.   It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate.  Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor.  (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have. "With every caveat that Rick said plus many many more lets have some fun.  One common way to measure risk is volatility of returns roughly how much the value of your asset jumps around.  Interestingly, the following ordering is fairly similar for many other common measures of risk. The first three on the list would be mostly interchangeable.  Generally, putting your money in ""cash"" investments has no real day-to-day price variability and the main risk is that the bank won't give you your money back at the end.  Money market funds are last as they can ""Break the buck"". To get a feel for the next few on the list I'm using previous 360 day volatility numbers for representative broad indices (asof 2014-10-27).  While these volatility values can move around quite a bit, the order is actually remarkably stable. Hedge funds might seem out of place here, but remember that hedge funds can hold be long and short at the same time and this can cancel out daily variation.  However, Hedge funds do have plenty of risks that may not be well accounted for by this measure.   For derivatives I'll refer to back to Rick's answer. This is a measure for broad investment in these categories your particular investment in Long-term Capital Management or Argentine Bonds may vary. It is important to note that your return on your investment generally grows as you go toward more risky investments down this list as people generally expect to be rewarded  in the long term for risky investments." "If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider ""safer investments"" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead." "The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of ""long-term"". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an ""emergency"" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible." It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal. US government bonds and bonds issued by companies with a safe track record and consistently high ratings, for the past years, by credit agencies. But the time line of your investment, which is quite short, maybe a factor of choosing the right bonds. If you are not going to touch the money then CD maybe an option or an interest bearing savings account. "First, I'd recommend that you separate ""short-term"" assets from ""long-term"" assets in your head.  Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund.  These should be kept in cash or short bond funds.   Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years.  Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon.  These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less.   Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks.  I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation.  Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards.  Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity.  The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation.  Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is."