What is the best resource for determining a specific age-based asset allocation?
Look into the asset allocations of lifecycle funds offered by a company like Vanguard. This page allows you to select your current age and find a fund based on that. You could pick a fund, like the Target Retirement 2055 Fund (ages 21-25), and examine its allocation in the Portfolio & Management tab. For this fund, the breakdown is: Then, look at the allocation of the underlying funds that comprise the lifecycle fund, in the same tab.  Look at each of those funds and see what asset allocation they use, and that should give you a rough idea for an age-based allocation. For example, the Total Stock Market Index Fund page has a sector breakdown, so if you wanted to get very fine-grained with your allocation, you could. (You're probably much better off investing in the index fund, low-cost ETFs, or the lifecycle fund itself, however; it'll be much cheaper).  Doing this for several lifecycle funds should be a good start. Keep in mind, however, that these funds are rebalanced as the target date approaches, so if you're following the allocation of some particular funds, you'll have to rebalance as well. If you really want an age-based allocation that you don't have to think about, invest in a lifecycle fund directly. You'll probably pay a lower expense ratio than if you invested in a whole slew of funds directory, and it's less work for someone who isn't comfortable managing their portfolio themselves. Furthermore, with Vanguard, the expense ratios are already fairly low.  This is only one example of an allocation, however; your tolerance of risk, age, etc. may affect what allocation you're willing to accept.  Full disclosure: Part of my Roth IRA is invested in the Target 2055 fund I used as an example above, and another part uses a similar rebalancing strategy to the one I used above, but with Admiral Share funds, which have higher minimum investments but lower expense ratios.
What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement.  Roth IRA is orthogonal to this.  Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks.  Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting. It's also bad to create skewed incentives that result in the best candidate not getting the job.   Or should we have no feelings for the other candidates who apply?   Edit: Hypothetical situation. My wife gets a job in another city, and I also need to relocate. I currently have a job. I am the best candidate for a new job, but don't get it because of the proposed tax credit.   Not only have you created an incentive for the company to hire a second best candidate, which is bad for the company and its customers, but I am unable to relocate.   Bad policy. Economic engineering that sounds good, but is not the most efficient means of allocating resources. "The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX).  And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff.  (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street.  If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them.  (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.)  So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a ""middle-class-sized"" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors.  To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so.  You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets.  So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax.  I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts.  This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations.  By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar." "I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that ""reasonable"" and ""diversified"" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then ""age"" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)" While the Vanguard paper is good, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining precisely why each level of stocks or bonds was optimal. If you'd like to read a transparent and quantitative explanation of when and why a a glide path is optimal, I'd suggest the following paper:  https://www.betterment.com/resources/how-we-construct-portfolio-allocation-advice/ (Full disclosure - I'm the author).  The answer is that the optimal risk level for any given holding period depends upon a combination of:  Using these two factors, you construct a risk-averse decision model which chooses the risk level with the best expected average outcome, where it looks only at the median and lower percentile outcomes. This produces an average which is specifically robust to downside risk. The result will look something like this:   The exact results will depend on the expected risk and return of the portfolio, and the degree of risk aversion specified.  The result is specifically valid for the case where you liquidate all of the portfolio at a specific point in time. For retirement, the glide path needs to be extended to take into account the fact that the portfolio will be liquidated gradually over time, and dynamically take into account the longevity risk of the individual.  I can't say precisely why Vanguard's path is how it is. James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books "For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: ""I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!"" -- $2M, these days, is ""comfortably well off."")" Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an   equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past,   and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with   such a premium.  ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6   percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return   differential in most circumstances over longer time periods.   Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must   dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower   expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath   construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand   risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both   their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For   younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth   is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human   capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger   person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk   exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate   glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various   financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We   examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential   implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.