Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Ben Carlson of Ritholtz Wealth Management.

Portfolio > Portfolio Construction

Does a 100% Stock Portfolio Make Sense?

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • There’s no universal answer as to whether someone should invest entirely in stocks.
  • Bonds can help take the anxiety out of wild price swings.
  • However, a 100% stock portfolio can be a fit for younger investors far from retirement.

Given the stock market’s healthy long-term performance, some clients may wonder whether it pays to invest 100% of their portfolios in equities.

In fact, Ben Carlson, Ritholtz Wealth Management’s institutional asset management director, recently wrote on his “A Wealth of Common Sense” blog that one reader had asked about investing retirement accounts entirely in stocks. Another questioned why retirees wouldn’t hang onto their equities and let them keep growing.

The questions arose after Carlson posted a chart with data from NYU showing S&P 500 annual returns over nearly a century, with up years far outnumbering down — and more than 50 years in which the index (or precursors) returned 10% or more.

Since so many financial decisions rest on a client’s particular situation, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Carlson said “it depends” whether investing entirely in stocks makes sense.

“In theory, young people investing for retirement should absolutely have 100% of their portfolio invested in equities,” he wrote. A best-case scenario for young investors would be the ability to put more money to work when the market slides, bringing lower prices, he added.

This scenario requires the investor to keep saving even in tough market times, according to Carlson, who suggested young people’s best financial asset is their “human capital,” i.e., their future earnings and savings ability.

That human capital diminishes as people age, however, “and your portfolio eventually becomes your biggest asset,” he wrote.

Older investors tend to switch from a wealth accumulation to a wealth preservation mindset, incorporating cash and bonds in their portfolios, so they don’t have to sell off holdings that have lost value in a bear market, from which it could take years to break even, he said.

No Universal Answer

“There is no universal answer for every investor, so it’s important to think through both the upside surprises — long-term compounding gains — and the downside shocks — lengthy bear markets,” noted Carlson, 41, who said his own retirement portfolio is entirely invested in equities or similar securities but that he keeps cash and short-term bond reserves.

ThinkAdvisor asked other investing experts to weigh in on the question.

Peter Mallouk, Creative Planning president and CEO, suggested some diversification makes sense despite the strong long-term track record for equities.

“Over 10 years or more, the odds are overwhelming that stocks will outperform bonds. People often overestimate the gap in income between bonds and stocks,” not realizing that stocks produce some income and quality bonds don’t produce that much, he said via email on Friday.

“I prefer to overweight stocks as much as possible,” he added, “only retaining enough in bonds to cover needs over the next five to seven years, or for those that simply can’t stomach the volatility that comes with stocks, especially if they can accomplish all their goals with a less volatile portfolio.

“However, it doesn’t make sense to own an all-stock portfolio just because it will likely perform much better. For those that have more than they need and don’t like wild price swings, bonds are a great addition to take out the unnecessary drama.”

Bogleheads Live host Jon Luskin, owner of Luskin Financial Planning and a registered investment advisor, said an entirely stock portfolio could make sense for some.

“Generally, for some investors who don’t need the money for a very long time and have the iron stomach to stick with it, a 100% stock portfolio isn’t unreasonable,” he said via email. “For younger investors far from retirement — or for those investing for legacy, a 100% stock portfolio could be a fit.

“Of course, whenever investing, folks need to be focused on not only taking the right amount of risk — helping them stick with their investing plan — but also keeping costs low and being diversified. That’s to say, a 100% stock portfolio made of low-cost, diversified funds can be a fit for some.”

It’s more challenging to make a case for high-fee funds with fewer holdings and to argue for picking a handful of individual stocks, he said, explaining that “the odds that one does well as a stock picker are terrible. The same goes for paying high fees to invest; if you pay more to invest, you’ll probably underperform low-cost index funds.”

Christine Benz, Morningstar personal finance director, suggested caution in taking an all-stock stance.

“While an all- or mostly equity portfolio might make sense for those with many years until retirement, our research pointed to the value of a balanced asset allocation for people who are actively drawing on their portfolios,” she said via email.

“For retirees who expect to be tapping their portfolios for 30 years, for example, we found that equity allocations of between 30% and 60% provided the highest starting withdrawal percentage — better than more equity-heavy portfolios,” said Benz.

Even young accumulators are usually saving for intermediate- or short-term goals besides retirement, such as a wedding or a home down payment, she noted.  Stocks are too unreliable over a 10-year horizon, so for money that investors aim to spend within 10 years, “I would argue it’s much smarter to hold a combination of cash and bond funds rather than being in stocks,” Benz added.

” If an investor wanted to hold some stocks for growth potential in the ‘spend within 10 years bucket’ it should be a fairly small percentage,” she said.

(Pictured: Ben Carlson of Ritholtz Wealth Management)


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.