I’m 34 years old and have about 5% of my portfolio allocated to bonds. This includes 10% in my 401k, 20% in my Roth IRA, and 15% in my HSA. A Fidelity advisor suggested dropping bonds from the IRA and HSA, keeping them only in the 401k if I want them at all. They think I’ll be fine without them for the next 30 years.
What do you think? Should I eliminate bonds entirely, or is it worth keeping some in certain accounts?
The advisor is likely emphasizing growth since you’re young. Stocks tend to outperform bonds long-term, and the risk is manageable over a 30-year horizon. You might want to reconsider bonds as you near retirement.
Yup, no need for bonds at 34. They’re better suited for folks close to or in retirement.
Bonds reduce portfolio volatility, which might help some investors stay the course during downturns. If that’s not a concern for you, skipping them is fine for now.
You’re holding bonds in the wrong places. Roth IRAs should prioritize growth, so 100% stocks. Bonds make the most sense in tax-deferred accounts like a 401k. Consider reallocating based on tax efficiency.
I’m 42 and have zero bonds. Stocks have done fine for me. If you’re okay with the volatility, go all-in on equities.
Traditional advice like a bond allocation equal to your age is outdated. Ben Felix has a good video explaining modern portfolio allocation: YouTube Link.
I agree with the advisor. Focus on stocks for now. Bonds might be worth revisiting closer to retirement.
If you don’t trust your advisor, then get a second opinion. Bonds might be useful depending on your portfolio size, risk tolerance, and financial goals.
No bonds needed for retirement at your age. Bonds are better suited for emergency funds or short-term savings.
Bonds provide diversification. While stocks often outperform, bonds can shine in certain market conditions. Diversification protects against unforeseen events.