Question

I was checking up on my Betterment investment account. It currently has a 40% stock, 60% bond allocation. Betterment is saying that's overly aggressive and to drop it down to 20/80. Thoughts?  

Answer 1

Seems pretty moderate to me. I always thought aggressive is when you have over 80 in stocks. Personally I have 70/15/15 stocks/bonds/cash

Answer 2

I'm in an aggressive account with wealthfront which is 80/20. How old are you? It could be too aggressive if you're really close to retirement.  

Answer 3

I’m not sure how old you are but 40/60 is WAY too conservative for somebody that isn’t retired yet.  

Answer 4

Way too conservative unless you are retiring soon.  

Answer 5

Age and goals are needed for sure

Answer 6

“Aggressive” depends on your age and the purpose of the account. I have a vanguard account fund that is 80/20 bonds to stocks, but I’m using it to to save for a down payment on a house. For its purpose, it’s probably a little too aggressive.  

Answer 7

Change you time horizon

Answer 8

I’d say that was conservative, I wouldn’t normally hold bonds in my investments unless I was going to withdraw from it in the near term

Answer 9

The only reason to go that conservative is if you need the money in the next year or two.  

Answer 10

If for an emergency fund or near term use, it may be aggressive depending on your risk tolerance

Answer 11

That's hella conservative. I'm 37 and have mostly all stocks. Unless you're within 20 years of retirement I wouldn't have any bonds.  

Answer 12

Check out M1 Finance, offers you a little more control and no management fees except expense ratios associated with ETFs etc.  

Answer 13

Mine says 'Moderate' and it's at 90/10. I'm 28 though, , so maybe takes age into account

Answer 14

Thanks for reminding me that it’s likely tied to goal. It’s my emergency fund.  

Answer 15

On this note, I'm currently in the process of getting into a dynamic fund at my bank, and it contains about 85% stocks 15% bonds. I guess that's considered really agressive, but the logic was that I won't be needing the money in the foreseeable future (20 y/o student atm with no real costs. Thank you Europe for the education system! ), so that it would actually be the best choice for growth in the long term. Is this reasoning valid?  

Comments

PS. My investments are spread out periodically (each 2 weeks) to mitigate the risk of getting a high buy price.