How to convince someone they're too risk averse or conservative with investments?
"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing ""tl;dr"" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish.  They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify.  The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market.  Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars." Let the man be. If you've tried again and again to convince him, and haven't, maybe he doesn't want to be convinced. It's his money, and he has every right to manage it as he sees fit. You can advise him, but its his call whether he accepts your advice or not, and for what reasons. And suppose you push and push and it gets through? Now either he has more money than he would otherwise, and he's happy he has such a smart friend. Or he loses 30% of his money, and you're trying to tell him that he's going to earn it back in due time, but you can't, because he's not talking to you. Ever. What do you think is the mean benefit to your friendship? I feel these beliefs can not be changed so easily. Once someone loses their money, how can you convince him? And on what ground can you convince him? Can you give a guarantee that investments will perform at a certain level? There are many people who are happy with low returns but highly safe instruments. They are not concerned with what you earn in the stock market or the realty market. They are happy not losing their money. I known many people who earned decently during the up-rise of the stock market but all profits were squared up in the downturn and it turned to negative. Such people have their own thinking and such thinking is not out of place. After experience with much turmoil, I feel that they are also right to a great extent. Hence I feel if the person is not getting convinced, you should accept it with greatness. Introduce him to the concept of Inflation Risk, and demonstrate that being too conservative with your investments might be a very risky strategy as well. "Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not ""safe""; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else."
"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth.  The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be.  As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down.  The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different.  Generally, you choose your investment according to your ""risk appetite"" - how much you're willing to risk.  You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk.  (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable.  However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: ""my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth"", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other.  If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis.  You should check though.  I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity.  Source" "My answer will suck but it comes from someone who has been married: You can't control another person or convince them to do something.  What you can do is identify what they value and show how saving money increases their opportunities in what they value, but understand that the person could see what you're saying as invalid too.  If you're single and reading this, this is why you verify that the person has similar values to you. Think of it like someone who wants good gas mileage: you show them a car that gets 60MPG, and immediately they say, ""Well, but that's not a cool car.""  So their value isn't the miles per gallon, and you may find the same is true with your spouse.  India is paying more interest than the US and Europe in their savings accounts (I believe the benchmark interest rate is 7.5%), so - assuming your spouse values more money - showing him how to use money in savings to passively earn money might be a technique that works.  But it may mean nothing to him because it's (1) not his actual value or (2) isn't enough to matter in his mind. In other words, this is all sales and whatever you do (and this is regardless of gender), don't manipulate, as in the long run that tends to build resentment.  If there is a specific problem that you know he sees as a major issue and saving money can help, I'd recommend showing how savings would help with that problem.  People generally like solutions to problems; just remember, what you think he sees as a problem may not be what he sees as a problem.  This is why I chuckle when I see single people give married people advice; you can't just ""convince the person enough"" because you are not that person; we have to speak their language and we should be careful to avoid creating resentment. The part that sucks (or doesn't depending on who you ask) is that if we can't convince others to do it, we should do it ourselves.  Either (1) earn money independently yourself when applicable (realizing that you are about to have a child and may be limited), or (2) save the money that you and your spouse have agreed that you're allotted, if this applies to your situation (a few spouses divide income even when one is an earner)." First, you need to understand how modern insurance companies operate. On the front end, they write contracts with customers, collecting up front premiums, and promising to pay out to cover future losses. Efficient premiums cover exactly what's paid out; if you charge too much customers leave for competition, and if you charge too little the company goes under, or at least loses money. Large armies of people are employed to accurately guess future risks, hopefully to the point of certainty you have in human mortality.  So over time, they will pay back those premiums. And there's a constant stream of new premiums coming in to replace money going out. So there's this effective pool of money they can use to buffer against large losses with; it's called float. And when the pool of money remains relatively constant, they can invest it longer term than the people who comprise the underlying risk. Large insurance companies like Berkshire Hathaway function in this manner; it's where Warren Buffet finds capital to invest while hiding from Wall St in Nebraska. The way these companies profit is by making sure the equation works:  Profits = Premiums - Payouts + Return on float Payouts could be just payments for insured risk. But they could also be for the whole life insurance you're running across from time to time. These contracts offer the insured the chance to invest their money with the people who invest the float. And as long as the return on float is greater than the return they're offering, it's still profitable for the company. Since this guarantees suboptimal returns for you, it's usually a good idea to buy term insurance (much cheaper) and invest the difference yourself. "I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not ""putting all your eggs in one basket"". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time." check out this rebuttal to the TechCrunch article from Leigh Drogen: http://www.leighdrogen.com/wealthfront-betterment-sigfig-and-a-bankrupt-investing-philosophy/  It's not so much the software piece he takes aim at but what he calls a broken philosophy. Saving money off fees and automating the investing process to prevent behavioral biases is all good but it's not a solution. "*(""Fee-only"" meaning the only money they make is the fee your folks pay directly; no kickbacks from financial products they're selling.) The answer to this is: for God's sake, leave it alone!  I commend you on wanting to help your family avoid more losses. You are right, that having most of one's retirement in one stock or sector is just silly. And again yes, if they're retired, they probably need some bonds.  But here's the thing, if they follow your advise and it doesn't work out, it will be a SERIOUS strain on your relationship. Of course you'll still be a family and they'll still love you, but emotionally, you are the reason they lost the money, and that will an elephant in between you. This is especially the case since we're talking about a lot of money here (presumably), and retirement money to boot.   You must understand the risk you're taking with your relationships. If you/they lose, at best it'll make things awkward, and you'll feel guilty about their impoverished retirement. At worst it can destroy your relationship with your folks.  What about if you win? Won't you be feted and appreciated by your folks for saving them from themselves? Yes, for a short while. Then life moves on. Everything returns to normal.  But here's the thing. You won't win. You can't. Because even if you're right here, and they win, that means both they and you will be eager for you to do it again. And at some point they'll take a hit based on your advise.    Can I be blunt here? You didn't even know that you can't avoid capital gains taxes by reinvesting stock gains. You don't know enough, and worse, you're not experienced enough. I deduce you're either a college student, or a recent grad. Which means you don't have experience investing your own money. You don't know how the market moves, you just know the theory.  You know who you are? You're me, 20 years ago. And thank God my grandparents ignored my advise. I was right about their utilities stocks back then, too. But I know from what I learned in the years afterwards, investing on my own account, that at some point I would have hurt them. And I would have had a very hard time living with that.  So, tell your folks to go visit a fee-only financial adviser to create a retirement plan.  Perhaps I'm reading into your post, but it seems like you're enthusiastic about investing; stocks, bonds, building wealth, etc. I love that. My advise -- go for it! Pull some money together, and open your own stock account. Do some trading! As much as people grouse about it, the market really is glorious. It's like playing Monopoly, but for keeps. I mean that in the best way possible. It's fun, you can build wealth doing it, and it provides a very useful social purpose.  In the spirit of that, check out these ideas (just for you, not for your folks!), based on ideas in your post:  Good luck." "If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational.  Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a ""hot"" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because ""it has momentum"" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because ""I know it will bounce back eventually"" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy).  Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying ""I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it."" When logically you should be thinking, ""If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.""" the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you.  You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns.  I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement.   Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees -  1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better.  The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years.  They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.