Is the stock market too risky for long term retirement funds? Why should a 20- or 30-something person invest in stocks?
"I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the ""safe"" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common.  Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking." Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out. The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile.  During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down.  However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it).  If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008.  There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about).  Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks?  Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in). I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors.  The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person.  For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice. I'm going to go the contrarian route and suggest you stay completely out of the stock market for the foreseeable future. We're entering a period of time this country and world has never seen before. Our country is broke / insolvent. We are printing money to buy our own debt. This is beyond stupid. It will destroy us, just like it did Germany in the 1920's. Many states are on the verge of bankruptcy. The only thing stopping them is a constitutional issue. California, Illinois, Michigan, New York etc. are all broke. They are billions in debt and massive underfunding of pensions.  More than a half-dozen European countries are on the verge of financial implosion. The Euro is just as bad off as our dollar. There are extremely powerful forces at work bent on destroying this country and the US dollar, to usher in a One World Government and financial system.  IMO, buy as much gold and silver has you can. Not necessarily as an investment vehicle. I would do it as a survival vehicle. And, I don't mean gold/silver stocks. I mean you buy gold/silver and you take physical possession.
"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example:  These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire.  Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one ""right"" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one ""right"" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money." The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments. I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky. When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless.  I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire.  When you use that right, you are exercising the option.  You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend).  Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount).  You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock.  If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well... As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser? if you don't intent to touch the money for 10 years or longer, then dumping 100% into a low-expense-ratio index fund seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. it is simple, low maintenance and fairly mindless. just remember to reinvest the dividends occasionally (e.g. every 6 months).  however, if you are the kind of person who is going to lose their nerve when the market goes down 30%, then putting some of your money into a bond index fund or even a treasury note fund would be better than selling stock in a down market. just figure out how much of your portfolio you are comfortable losing, and put that in stocks.  then put the rest in some stable value fund and watch it's value get slowly washed away by inflation while your stock investments rise through violent swings. "When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now.  In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also  mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not ""pure stocks"": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done ""by hand,"" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard.  (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice." My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check.  The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless.  *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.