Should You Invest Your Entire Portfolio In Stocks? (2024)

Every so often, a well-meaning "expert" will say long-term investors should invest 100% of their portfolios in equities. Not surprisingly, this idea is most widely promulgated near the end of a long bull trend in the U.S. stock market. Below we'll stage a preemptive strike against this appealing, but potentially dangerous idea.

The Case for 100% Equities

The main argument advanced by proponents of a 100% equities strategy is simple and straightforward: In the long run, equities outperform bonds and cash; therefore, allocating your entire portfolio to stocks will maximize your returns.

Supporters of this view cite the widely used Ibbotson Associates historical data, which "proves" that stocks have generated greater returns than bonds, which in turn have generated higher returns than cash. Many investors—from experienced professionals to naive amateurs—accept these assertions without further thought.

While such statements and historical data points may be true to an extent, investors should delve a little deeper into the rationale behind,and potential ramifications of,a 100% equity strategy.

Key Takeaways

  • Some people advocate putting all of your portfolio into stocks, which, though riskier than bonds, outperform bonds in the long run.
  • This argument ignores investor psychology, which leads many people to sell stocks at the worst time—when they are down sharply.
  • Stocks are also more vulnerable to inflation and deflation than are other assets.

The Problem With 100% Equities

The oft-cited Ibbotson data is not very robust. It covers only one particular time period (1926-present day) in a single country—the U.S. Throughout history, other less-fortunate countries have had their entire public stock markets virtually disappear, generating 100% losses for investors with 100% equity allocations. Even if the future eventually brought great returns, compounded growth on $0 doesn't amount to much.

It is probably unwise to base your investment strategy on a doomsday scenario, however. So let's assume the future will look somewhat like the relatively benign past. The 100% equity prescription is still problematic because although stocks may outperform bonds and cash in the long run, you could go nearly broke in the short run.

Market Crashes

For example, let's assume you had implemented such a strategy in late 1972 and placed your entire savings into the stock market. Over the next two years, the U.S. stock marketlost more than 40% of its value. During that time, it may have been difficult to withdraw even a modest 5% a year from your savings to take care of relatively common expenses, such as purchasing a car, meeting unexpected expenses or paying a portion of your child's college tuition.

That'sbecause your life savings would have almost been cut in half in just two years.That is an unacceptable outcome for most investors and one from which it would be very tough to rebound. Keep in mind that the crash between 1973 and 1974 wasn't the most severe, considering what investors experienced in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, however unlikely that a crash of that magnitude could happen again.

Of course, proponents of all-equities argue that if investors simply stay the course, they will eventually recover those losses and earn much more than if they get in and out of the market. This, however, ignores human psychology, which leads most people get into and out of the market at precisely the wrong time, selling low and buying high. Staying the course requires ignoring prevailing "wisdom" and doing nothing in response to depressed market conditions.

Let's be honest. It can be extremely difficult for most investors to maintain an out-of-favor strategy for six months, let alone for many years.

Inflation and Deflation

Another problem with the 100% equities strategy is that it provides little or no protection against the two greatest threats to any long-term pool of money: inflation and deflation.

Inflation is a rise in general price levels that erodes the purchasing power of your portfolio. Deflation is the opposite, defined as a broad decline in prices and asset values, usually caused by a depression, severe recession, or other major economic disruptions.

Equities generally perform poorly if the economy is under siege by either of these two monsters. Even a rumored sighting can inflict significant damage to stocks. Therefore, the smart investor incorporates protection—or hedges—into his or her portfolio to guard against these two threats.

There are ways to mitigate the impact of either inflation or deflation, and they involve making the right asset allocations. Real assets—such as real estate (in certain cases), energy, infrastructure, commodities, inflation-linked bonds, and gold—could provide a good hedge against inflation. Likewise, an allocation to long-term, non-callable U.S. Treasury bonds provides the best hedge against deflation, recession, or depression.

A final word on a 100% stock strategy. If you manage money for someone other than yourself you are subject to fiduciary standards. A pillar of fiduciary care and prudence is the practice of diversification to minimize the risk of large losses. In the absence of extraordinary circ*mstances, a fiduciary is required to diversify across asset classes.

Your portfolio should be diversified across many asset classes, but it should become more conservative as you get closer to retirement.

The Bottom Line

So if 100% equities aren't the optimal solution for a long-term portfolio, what is? An equity-dominated portfolio, despite the cautionary counter-arguments above, is reasonable if you assume equities will outperform bonds and cash over most long-term periods.

However, your portfolio should be widely diversified across multiple asset classes: U.S. equities, long-term U.S. Treasuries, international equities, emerging markets debt and equities, real assets, and even junk bonds.

Age matters here, too. The closer you are to retirement, the more you should trim allocations to riskier holdings and boost those of less-volatile assets. For most people, that means moving gradually away from stocks and toward bonds. Target- date funds will do this for you more or less automatically.

If you are fortunate enough to be a qualified and accredited investor, your asset allocation should also include a healthy dose of alternative investments—venture capital, buyouts, hedge funds, and timber.

This more diverse portfolio can be expected to reduce volatility, provide some protection against inflation and deflation, and enable you to stay the course during difficult market environments—all while sacrificing little in the way of returns.

As an investment expert with a demonstrated depth of knowledge in financial markets and portfolio management, I've extensively studied the principles and strategies that shape successful long-term investment approaches. My understanding is grounded in both theoretical frameworks and practical experiences within the field, allowing me to critically analyze and provide insights into various investment philosophies.

Now, delving into the concepts discussed in the provided article:

  1. Ibbotson Associates Historical Data:

    • The article mentions the widely used Ibbotson Associates historical data, often cited by proponents of a 100% equities strategy. This data supposedly proves that stocks have outperformed bonds and cash over the long run. However, a critical viewpoint is presented, questioning the robustness of the data. The Ibbotson data covers a specific time period (1926-present day) in a single country—the U.S.
  2. Rationale Behind 100% Equities:

    • The main argument for a 100% equities strategy is based on the historical outperformance of stocks compared to bonds and cash in the long run. The idea is to maximize returns by allocating the entire portfolio to stocks.
  3. Investor Psychology:

    • The article highlights the flaw in the 100% equities strategy by bringing attention to investor psychology. It suggests that the strategy ignores the fact that many investors tend to sell stocks at the worst time—during market downturns.
  4. Market Crashes:

    • An example is provided to illustrate the potential drawbacks of a 100% equities strategy during market crashes. The article references the U.S. stock market crash between 1973 and 1974, where a 100% equity allocation would have resulted in significant losses, making it challenging for investors to meet common expenses.
  5. Inflation and Deflation:

    • The article emphasizes that a 100% equities strategy provides little protection against inflation and deflation, which are significant threats to long-term wealth. It suggests that smart investors should incorporate hedges into their portfolios to guard against these economic challenges.
  6. Diversification and Fiduciary Standards:

    • The importance of diversification is stressed, especially for those managing money for others. Fiduciary standards require diversification across asset classes to minimize the risk of large losses. The article suggests that a fiduciary, absent extraordinary circ*mstances, is obligated to diversify across asset classes.
  7. Optimal Portfolio Solution:

    • The bottom line of the article suggests that while a 100% equities strategy may not be optimal, an equity-dominated portfolio is reasonable if one assumes equities will outperform bonds and cash in the long term. The key is to have a widely diversified portfolio across multiple asset classes, adjusting the allocation based on age and gradually moving towards less volatile assets, such as bonds, as retirement approaches.
  8. Alternative Investments:

    • For qualified and accredited investors, the article recommends including alternative investments like venture capital, buyouts, hedge funds, and timber in the portfolio. This diverse approach is expected to reduce volatility, provide protection against inflation and deflation, and enable investors to navigate challenging market environments.

In conclusion, the article provides a nuanced perspective on the 100% equities strategy, emphasizing the importance of a well-diversified portfolio that considers various factors, including investor psychology, market history, and economic conditions.

Should You Invest Your Entire Portfolio In Stocks? (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Amb. Frankie Simonis

Last Updated:

Views: 6272

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (56 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Amb. Frankie Simonis

Birthday: 1998-02-19

Address: 64841 Delmar Isle, North Wiley, OR 74073

Phone: +17844167847676

Job: Forward IT Agent

Hobby: LARPing, Kitesurfing, Sewing, Digital arts, Sand art, Gardening, Dance

Introduction: My name is Amb. Frankie Simonis, I am a hilarious, enchanting, energetic, cooperative, innocent, cute, joyous person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.