What to sell when your financial needs change, stocks or bonds?
The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds. "Don't set mental anchor points. I am saying this as a total hypocrite, mind you, it isn't easy to follow that advice. My suggestion would be to look at each investment and ask yourself, ""Would I buy that at today's price?"", because if you wouldn't you need to sell regardless of whether you are cashing out. Effectively by staying in an investment you no longer believe in, you are giving up the opportunity cost of investing that money in something with a real chance to  give you a return, or in your case whatever purpose you have in mind for the cash." So I don't have any problems with your analysis or the comments associated with it. I just wanted to mention that no one is talking about taxes. Your answer....Figure out new portfolio breakdown and sell to 1.) Get money I need and 2.) re-balance the portfolio to my new target allocations is completely correct.  (Unimpeachable in my opinion.) However, when you calculate what you need to sell to meet your current cash needs make sure to include in that analysis money to pay taxes on anything you sell for a gain, or keep some invested to account for the tax money you would save by selling things for a loss.  The actual mechanics of calculating what these amounts are are fairly involved but not difficult to understand. (IE every situation is different.) Best of luck to you, and I hope your cashflow gets back up to its previous level soon. You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital. You have to understand what risk is and how much risk you want to take on, and weight your portfolio accordingly.  I think your 80/20 split based on wrong assumptions is the wrong way to look at it.  It sounds like your risk appetite has changed. Risk is deviation from expected, so risk is not bad, and you can have cases where everyone would prefer the riskier asset.   If you think the roulette table is too risky, instead of betting $1, stick 50c in your pocket and you changed the payoffs from $2 or 0 to 50c or $1.50 If your risk appetite has changed - change your risk exposure.  If not, then all you are saying is I bought the wrong stuff earlier, now I should get out.
"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." "To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the ""Black Scholes"" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is ""Implied Volatility"", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, ""implied volatility"" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The ""Volatility Index"" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the ""implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500"". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of ""the stock market"". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options" Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? I'm going to concentrate on this question, particularly the first half.   Net income $4500 per month (I'm taking this to be after taxes; correct me if wrong).  Rent is $1600 and other expenses are up to $800.  So let's call that $2500.  That leaves you $2000 a month, which is $24,000 a year.   You can contribute up to $18,000 a year to a 401k and if you want to maintain your income in retirement, you probably should.  The average social security payment now is under $1200.  You have an above average income but not a maximum income.  So let's set that at $1500.  You need an additional income stream of $900 a month in retirement plus enough to cover taxes.  Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth).  That's $23,500.  That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes.  Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth).  That's $23,500.  That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes.   You are basically even.  Your income is just about what you need to cover expenses and retirement.  You could cover a monthly mortgage payment of $1600 and have a $100,000 down payment.  That probably gets you around a $350,000 house, although check property taxes.  They have to come out of the $1600 a month.  That doesn't seem like a lot for a Bay area house even if it would buy a mansion in rural Mississippi.  Perhaps think condo instead.   Try to keep at least $15,000 to $27,000 as emergency savings.  If you lose your job or get stuck with a required expense (e.g. a major house repair), you'll need that money.   You don't have enough income to support a car unless it saves you money somewhere.  $500 a year is probably not going to cover insurance, parking, gas, and maintenance.   It's possible that you could tighten up your expenses, but in my experience, people are more likely to underestimate their expenses than overestimate.  That's why I'm saying $2500 (a little above the high end) rather than $2000 (your low end estimate).  If things are stable, wait a year and evaluate.  Track your actual spending.  Ask yourself if you made any large purchases.  Your budget should include an appliance (TV, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc.) a year.  If you're not paying for that now (included in rent?), then you need to allow for it in your ownership budget.   I do not consider an ESPP to be a reliable investment vehicle.  Consider the Enron possibility.  You wake up one day and find out that there is no actual money.  Your stock is now worthless.  A diversified portfolio can survive this.  If you lose your job and your investment, you'll be stuck with just your savings.  Hopefully you didn't just tie them up in a house that you might have to sell to take your next job in a different location.  An ESPP might work as savings for the house.  If something goes wrong, don't buy the house.  But it's not retirement or emergency savings.   I would say that you are OK but could be better.  Get your retirement savings started.  That does two things.  One, it gives you money for retirement.  Two, it keeps you from having extra money now when it is easy to develop expensive habits.  An abrupt drop from $4500 in spending to $1200 will hurt.  A smooth transition from $2500 to $2500 is what you would like to see.  You are behind now, but you have the opportunity to catch up for a few years.   Work out how much you'll get from Social Security and how much you need to cover your typical expenses with the occasional emergency.  Expect high health care costs in retirement.  Medicare covers a lot but not everything, and health care is only getting more expensive.  Don't forget to assume higher taxes in the future to help cover that expense and the existing debt.  After a few years of catch up contributions, work out your long term plan assuming a reasonable real (after inflation) rate of return.  If you can reduce the $23,500 in retirement contributions then, that's OK.  But be pessimistic.  Most people overestimate good things and underestimate bad things.  It's much better to have extra than not enough.   A 401k comes with an administrator and your choice of mutual funds.  Try for diversification.  Some money in bonds (25% to 30%).  The remainder in stocks.  Look for index funds.  Try for a mix of value and growth, as they'll do better at different times.  As you approach retirement, you can convert some of that into shorter term, lower yield investments.  The rough rule of thumb is to have two to five years of withdrawals in short term investments like money market funds.  But that's more than twenty years off.   You have more choices with an IRA.  In particular, you can choose your own administrator.  But I'd keep the same stock/bond mix and stick to index funds if you're not interested in researching the more complex options.  You may want to invest your IRA in a growth fund and your 401k in value funds and bonds.  Then balance the stock/bond mix across both.   When you invest each year, look at the underrepresented funds and add the most to them.  So if bonds had a bad year and didn't keep pace, invest in bonds.  They're probably cheap.  You don't want to rebalance frequently, but once a year might be a good pace.  That's about how often you should invest in an IRA, so that can be a good time.   I'll let the others answer on the financial advisor part. "This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might want to consider whether you want to have a financial planner at all. Would a large mutual fund company or brokerage serve your needs better than a bank? You are still quite young and so have been contributing to IRAs for only a few years. Also, the wording in your question suggests that your IRA investments have not done spectacularly well, and so it is reasonable to infer that your IRA is not a large amount, or at least not as large as what it would be 30  years from now. At this level of investment, it would be difficult for you to find a financial planner who spends all that much time looking after your interests. That you should get away from your current planner, presumably a mid-level employee in what is typically called the trust division of the bank, is a given.  But, to go to another bank (or even to a different employee in the same bank), where  you will also likely be nudged towards investing your IRA in CDs, annuities, and a few mutual funds with substantial sales charges and  substantial annual expense fees, might just take you from the frying pan into the fire. You might want to consider transferring your IRA to a large mutual fund company and investing it in something simple  like one of their low-cost (meaning small annual expense ratio) index funds. The Couch Potato portfolio suggests equal amounts invested in a no-load S&P 500 Index fund and a no-load Bond Index fund, or a 75%-25% split favoring the stock index fund (in view of your age and the fact that the IRA should be a long-term investment).  But the point is,  you can open an IRA account, have the money transferred from your IRA account with the bank, and make the investments on-line all by yourself instead of having a financial advisor do it on your behalf and charge you a fee for doing so (not to mention possibly screwing it up.) You can set up Automated Investment too; the mutual fund company will gladly withdraw money from your checking account and invest it in whatever fund(s) you choose.  All this is not complicated at all.  If you would like to follow the Couch Potato strategy and rebalance your portfolio once a year, you can do it  by yourself too. If you want to invest in funds other than the S&P 500 Index fund, etc. most mutual fund  companies offer a ""portfolio analysis"" and advice for a fee (and the fee is usually waived when the assets increase above certain levels - varies from company to company).  You could thus have a portfolio analysis done each year, and hopefully it will be free after a few more years.  Indeed, at that level, you also typically get one person assigned as your advisor, just as you have with a bank. Once you get the recommendations, you can choose to follow them  or not, but you have control over how and where your IRA assets are invested.  Over the years, as your IRA assets grow, you can branch out into  investments other than ""staid"" index funds, but right now, having a financial planner for your IRA might not be worth it. Later, when you have more assets, by all means if you want to explore investing in specific stocks with a brokerage instead of sticking to mutual funds only but this might also mean phone calls urging you to sell Stock A right now, or buy hot Stock B today etc. So, one way of improving your interactions and have a better experience with your new financial planner is to not have a planner at all for a few years and do some of the work yourself." "A major danger of keeping ""emergency"" funds in the form of stocks is that many of the scenarios where one would need quick access to the money will also momentarily depress the stock market.  Someone whose emergency funds were in some other form could avoid selling stocks during a momentary downturn, but someone who has no other emergency funds would have no choice but to sell during the downturn (thus losing money as well as making the downturn more significant for everyone else)." "The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea.  Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk.  So yes, you should buy corporate bonds.  Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset.  You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not.  Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free.  They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise.  Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can.  If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks).  Otherwise you will need to choose your weights.  Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be.  That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject.  But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an ""anchor,"" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really.  Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now.  Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons.  You want expected returns, you must take risk." Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less. Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment