In a previous article we examined whether stocks are riskier than bonds, concluding that they are, but it is also a function of how you hold bonds, whether individual bonds or bond funds. Given that there is a tradeoff of risk between stocks and bonds, the natural question to ask next is how much you should invest in stocks versus bonds. For example, the conventional wisdom is that it should be a function of your age, as we expect your appetite for risk to diminish over time.

One of the most common issues that you will have to deal with when building your investment portfolio is the tradeoff of stocks vs bonds in your investment mix. The conventional wisdom regarding stocks vs bonds is that stocks are riskier than bonds. Let’s take a look at the background information that supports that conclusion, and see if it applies to your investment portfolio.

The primary advantage to bonds is that they have a fixed maturity and, ignoring the potential for the company going bankrupt, you know exactly how much money you will be getting and when. But this is only true if you hold the bonds to maturity. For a 30 year bond, that’s quite a commitment. But this is the basic assumption that is underlying the ideal that stocks are riskier than bonds.