Is there any data that shows how diversifying results in better returns than just sticking to an all-stock portfolio?
"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods.  You can see the figures in the PDF.  These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time.  The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that ""under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time"". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here.  I read your question as asking ""is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio"".  There is some such data.  However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides.  You're unlikely to find data that ""proves"" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds.  For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing.  It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper.  The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk."
"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold.   Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession.  You do not seem to be in that category.  Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy.  No matter what you do, you should be diversified.  All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there).  The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund.  Or several.  These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it.  There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later.  It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea:  Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments.  Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify.  Buy a ""total stock market"" fund and a ""total bond fund"" in a ratio that you like.  If you want, also buy an ""international fund.""  If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider).  The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry.  Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it." In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600.  A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies.  Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left.  Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering.  Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market.  For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.”  That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive.  Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.”  So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value.  Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back.  “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.”  He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.”  Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent.  The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise.  Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?”  So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on.  But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves.  Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist.  The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked 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. As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average.  The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment.  If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease.  One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as:  I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas.  It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well.  You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket. This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively. “Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.”   So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?) "I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class ""buckets."" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The ""target retirement"" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the ""equity premium"" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,"