Asset allocation when retirement is already secure
he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing. "As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've ""won the game"" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of ""comfortably"" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. ""Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?""), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to ""leave a legacy"" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a ""dream"" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your ""needs"" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask ""if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative"", but of course if it's ""too conservative"" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's ""conservative enough"". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so." "You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources.  Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach ""certain safety"" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on."
This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below).  A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions  from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared).  In short, a distribution  from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer  or this one. "I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market?  You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return.  This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight.  Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - ""annuities are sold, not bought"") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you.  At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you.   Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it.  Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio.  (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with." You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely.  Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad.  Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations. "Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the ""pure taxable income"" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income.  Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit.  The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates." "A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency.  Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean ""I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!""" "You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now.   But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the ""compounding return"" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% ""return"" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a ""safe"" annuity and each year putting 10% of the ""return"" from that into your more risky retirement account." "Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age.  This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc).  If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans.  (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two.  Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older.  You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules.  The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk.  There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept.  #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is ""100 minus your age"".  This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks.  If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock.  Over the years, the ""100"" number has varied.  Some financial advisor types have suggested ""150"" or ""200"".  Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly.  At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild.  Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation.  If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary.  (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options.  I do suggest that your focus on selecting a ""passive"" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like ""total market"" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies.  (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.)  The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision.  A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices.  Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments.  There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio).  However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/" "There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment.  You would do well to get this out of your head now.  Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a ""Pure Cash - No investment option"" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever).  Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund.  These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund.  Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market.  Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do.  Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again.  Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work.  Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong.  If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein.  He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets.  His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation."