7 Reasons Not to Have a 100% Stock Portfolio

If stocks tend to outperform most, if not all, asset classes, why bother owning anything else?

A seasoned investor may view that as a silly question, but those with only a decade or so of investing experience have seen the stock market climb steadily upwards, save for that blip in early 2020 that we recovered from quite rapidly.

Dr. Jim Dahle came up with 7 different reasons to diversify your portfolio to own additional asset classes and why an all-stock portfolio may not be such a good idea.

This post was originally published by The White Coat Investor.

 

 

I fully understand the desire to use a 100% stock portfolio. Once somebody looks at past behavior of the stock market and understands the general rule between risk and return, it seems obvious to question why they might want to put 10%, 25%, 40%, or more of their portfolio into those pesky low-returning bonds. I mean, look at the data:100% stock portfolioThe intermediate investor looks at that data and thinks, “If I can get 10.1% returns instead of 9.5% returns, over 30 years that means I end up with 12% more money. Or I can retire over a year earlier with the same amount of money.

All I have to do is tolerate losing a little more of my money in a bear market. I’m sure I can do that since stocks have ALWAYS come back….eventually.”

People also have an understandably hard time getting excited about investing in bonds given current yields of 0.1-3%, especially when they understand that the best predictor of future nominal bond returns is current yield.

 

Should You Rebalance Your All Stock Portfolio?

 

However, today we’re going to poke some holes into the argument for 100% stocks. Now, if at the end of this article you still want a 100% stock portfolio, knock yourself out. But I think any 100% stock investor owes herself two things:

  1. Fully understand the arguments against a 100% stock portfolio
  2. Pass through her first bear market and STILL feel comfortable with a 100% stock portfolio

 

Obviously, obeying those two requirements rules out the opportunity for any investing virgins (anyone who hasn’t invested in a bear market) to have a 100% stock portfolio. That’s probably a good thing.

A 100% stock proponent might then argue, “But that means that anyone who has started investing in the last decade can’t have a 100% stock portfolio when their risk tolerance should be highest at the beginning of their career.”

To which I would reply, “The fact that we haven’t had a real bear market in a decade is not an argument for increasing your stock allocation.” Besides, there were (admittedly short) bear markets in the summer of 2011, December 2018, and March 2020, so that excuse really doesn’t fly.

All right, let’s get into it.

 

Start receiving paid survey opportunities in your area of expertise to your email inbox by joining the Curizon community of Physicians and Healthcare Professionals.

Use our link to Join and you'll also be entered into a drawing for an additional $250 to be awarded to one new registrant referred by Physician on FIRE this month.

 

#1 Why Not 130% Stocks?

 

I never see threads arguing for 95% stock portfolios. Nor 105% portfolios. It’s always 100%. I’m not sure what the fascination with that round number is other than it is round.

If 100% stocks is good, 110% stocks must be better, right? How do you get 110% stocks? Well, debt is basically a negative bond. So if you borrow 10% of the size of your portfolio and invest the entire portfolio plus that 10% in stocks, you have a 110% stock portfolio.

In truth, it doesn’t matter what the source of that debt is. If you have student loans and a mortgage and a relatively small portfolio, in reality, you may already have a portfolio that is already > 100% stocks.

If the possibility of a margin call scares you (and it should) then don’t borrow against the portfolio, borrow against your house to get there. Actually, don’t. At least not until you’ve read this fascinating thread started in 2007 and progressing through the Global Financial Crisis.

 

#2 Why Not 100% Small-Value Stocks?

 

The primary reason people cite for 100% stock portfolios is because in the long-run, at least in the United States, a 100% stock portfolio has had higher returns than a portfolio that contained any percentage of bonds—although at the extremes the “cost” of a few bonds or a few stocks isn’t very high, as you can see in this chart:

 

US stocks vs bonds

 

We can carry that higher return argument out further. Long-term data suggests that small-value stocks outperform the overall market. So if you’re just going for the highest possible return, you should use a portfolio that is 100% small-value stocks.

 

small cap stocks

 

A factor investing fan would argue you’re even MORE diversified doing that, since you are now taking not only market risk, but also size and value risk. Does a 100% small-value portfolio make you feel uncomfortable? You don’t want to put all your money into what accounts for just 2% of the stock market?

 

100% stock portfolio

 

The same reason you feel uncomfortable with a 100% small-value portfolio should make you uncomfortable with a 100% stock portfolio. It’s a very big bet on the future resembling the past.

 

#3 Bonds Might Outperform Stocks

 

There have been long time periods in the past when bonds outperformed stocks, even in the US, and even longer time periods in other national markets. It might not be “normal” but it does happen. The problem is we all get seduced by stocks when we look at tables like this one:

 

stock bond returns

 

(By the way, that’s a really fun chart to pull out when the gold bugs start doing their thing too.) But if you carefully examine shorter time periods, you’ll see that there are many periods of time where bonds outperform stocks for quite a while. Take a look at this chart of rolling 10-year periods:

 

stock vs bond returns

 

As you can see, stocks outperform bonds most of the time over 10 years, but nowhere near all the time. It becomes especially noteworthy if you also include all those 10-year periods when stocks barely outperformed bonds while taking far less risk.

Even at 15 years, a bet on stocks hasn’t always worked out well. In this chart, S&P 500 stocks are compared to 5-year treasuries.

 

100% stock portfolio

 

15 years can be a long time. Consider where you were financially 15 years ago. 15 years ago I had a four-figure net worth as a brand new intern. Now, imagine you’ve been investing ever since then in a 100% stock portfolio and you’re STILL underperforming a 100% bond portfolio.

It happens. It has happened even more frequently outside of the United States. Check out the real (after-inflation) equity returns from various countries:

 

 

 

As you can see, US bonds outperformed some of those countries over more than a century! That might be twice as long as your investing career. Maybe the future looks more like Japan or heaven forbid, Austria, rather than the US or South Africa.

This idea that stocks always outperform bonds over 20+ year periods really only applies to the US and the comparative advantages the US has enjoyed in the past were significantly higher. (To be fair, some of the bond returns of these countries were even worse than their stock returns!)

More recently, I saw a post that looked into stock versus bond returns in the US, but not over the typical time period that we look at. If you start in 1793, there is a 150-year period where bonds outperformed stocks!

 

 

I look at all this data and to me, as a long-term investor, the message is clear. Bet on stocks, but don’t bet the farm. A 100% stock portfolio is betting the farm. The future may not resemble the past at all or we may have one of those periods like the 1930s, 1970s, or 2000s.

When I constructed my portfolio, I made a few assumptions:

  1. Stocks would outperform bonds.
  2. Small-value stocks would outperform the overall stock market.
  3. US stocks and international stocks would have similar returns with a correlation of less than 1.
  4. Stocks and real estate would have similar returns with a correlation of less than 1.

 

As you might expect, my portfolio reflects those assumptions. But I also wanted a portfolio that was highly likely to reach my financial goals even if one or more of my assumptions turned out to be wrong.

I tried to avoid making any big bets that would sink me if they were wrong. As such, I hold lots of stocks, but didn’t go “all-in” with a 100% stock portfolio. I have a significant small-value tilt, but I also own the entire market.

own both US and international stocks. I own both stocks and real estate. The goal of investing isn’t to win, it’s to not lose. Consider both the likelihood that your assumptions are wrong AND the consequences when designing your portfolio.

 

#4 Easier to Stay the Course

 

I think it is a big mistake for a new investor who has read a book or two on investing to assume they will be able to tolerate a stock-heavy portfolio in a bear market. When setting up a portfolio in “normal times” lots of stocks make logical sense. But staying the course in a bear market is not a logical experience. It is a profoundly emotional one.

Watching money that used to be yours disappear is psychologically painful. That money represents the kitchen upgrade you didn’t do, the Tesla you didn’t buy, the vacation you didn’t take, and the piano lessons you didn’t give to your child.

Investing more as the market drops day by day and the talking heads on TV are screaming “This is the end” feels like shoving hundred-dollar bills down a rat hole. Ignore the critical behavioral aspect of investing at your peril.

Having SOMETHING invested in bonds at those times not only reduces the volatility of your portfolio but also gives you the psychological reassurance that “At least I didn’t put it all in the market.” In fact, your bonds (at least the high-quality ones) are likely RISING in value at that time, providing you reassurance that something you own is actually increasing in value and moderating the volatility of the entire portfolio.

You get to say to yourself, “Now I’ve got some dry powder I can put to work so I can buy stocks while there is blood in the streets,” even if deep down you know that is just a psychological crux and you really don’t want to hold “dry powder”.

All of that helps you to stay the course, which is the most critical aspect of investing. You are far better off holding a 60/40 portfolio for decades than a 100% stock portfolio that you sell low just once during your investing career. Avoiding the investment catastrophe of selling low is the most important aspect of portfolio construction.

Far better to underestimate your risk tolerance than overestimate it. It’s kind of like The Price is Right, where you try to get as close as you can to your risk tolerance without going over.

 

You really don’t want to pull a Happy Gilmore and find out “The price is wrong, Bob!”

 

#5 Experienced Investors Say Don’t Use a 100% Stock Portfolio

 

I find it interesting that the majority of those who advocate for a 100% stock portfolio are on the young side. When I talk to older investors, they are very much fans of bonds. Their willingness to take risk has dropped over the decades, of course, but part of it is that they have lived through economic scenarios that you and I have never seen.

These older folks say “Pay off your mortgage” even though the numbers suggest you could come out ahead by not doing so. They say, “Own both stocks and bonds” even though they would have come out ahead with a 100% stock portfolio over their lifetime. Ignore the wisdom of your elders at your own peril.

 

Benjamin Graham, who Warren Buffett considers his mentor, said that you should never hold more than 75% of your portfolio in stocks and no more than 75% of your portfolio in bonds.

Graham was born in 1894 and died in 1976, so his investment career really started during World War I, extended through the Great Depression and World War II, endured through the cold war, and ended during the stagflation of the 1970s.

Stock yields were over 5% for most of his career (actually higher than bond yields) and that was felt to be normal since stocks were so much riskier than bonds. Taylor Larimore is a big fan of holding bonds and recommends you hold up to your age in bonds. He’s 94 years old. You might consider what he knows that you don’t.

 

 

100% stock portfolio
Might want to find a less risky place to watch TV, never know what might land on you.

 

#6 Don’t Take Investment Risks You Don’t Have To

 

Some people may need a 100% stock portfolio to meet their goals. Some people may also need to highly leverage their lives by borrowing against the house in order to invest more. Others may need a highly leveraged real estate portfolio to get what they want.

But the chances of you needing to do that to reach your goal are probably pretty low. A typical young attending physician reading this site simply doesn’t need to take those kinds of risks to retire early as a multi-millionaire.

At a certain point, you’ve got to ask yourself why you’re taking risks you don’t need to take. Is 24% more volatility worth it to retire in 29 years instead of 30?

Would you be better off cutting back your lifestyle a tiny bit and working an occasional extra shift so you could save a little more money and use a 75/25 portfolio rather than a 100/0 portfolio? Probably.

These aren’t risks that folks like us need to take. Don’t take risks you don’t have to.

 

# 7 We Overestimate How Much the Future Will Resemble the Past

 

A common behavioral error is to expect that the future will resemble the past, particularly the recent past. We project what we have seen will continue indefinitely. A careful study of the past will reveal that time and time again investors are surprised when that isn’t the case.

How sure are you that stocks will outperform bonds over the next 30 years? How about the next 20? 10? Be careful that this very natural human tendency doesn’t lead you to take on more risk than you should. In early 2000, people were really sure stocks would outperform bonds in the 2000s, but they were wrong.

There you go. If I haven’t convinced you to add some bonds to your portfolio AND you’ve invested through your first bear market, feel free to use 100% stocks or more. But the Venn Diagram overlap of those who can tolerate a 100% stock portfolio and those who need to take that kind of risk is so small that the odds you’re in that area of overlap are unlikely.

100% stock portfolio risk

 

What do you think? Do you hold bonds? Why or why not? What percentage of investors do you think can tolerate a 100% stock portfolio in a down market? Comment below!

8 thoughts on “7 Reasons Not to Have a 100% Stock Portfolio”

  1. I have a good friend who is always 100% equities and real estate. He is in his late sixties. I asked him why he said “that is what my father always did, and that is what i always do.” My father hated equities but liked real estate. He would look shocked when i told him i owned stocks. He also had little patience with doctors. This is a long way of saying there is a reason #8 for not being 100% equities. Early teaching by parents. Could go either way apparently. But IMHO what we learn early in life is going to affect our investment choices and probably everything else in life. For better or worse.

    Reply
    • Rental real estate is a lot of work but it is a great balance for a stock portfolio. The appreciation performs like a stock and the income is like a bond.

      Reply
  2. Subscribe to get more great content like this, an awesome spreadsheet, and more!
  3. Reason #8: Liquidity. Most of us investing for decades will need to use significant assets from time to time. Try buying a house with stocks when the market is down, or when it is up, get ready for a big capital gains bill.

    Reason #9: Sequence-of-return risk. You can get “hosed” in a bear market if you eventually retire with a 100% equity portfolio and then actually need to withdraw stocks in a down market to fund living expenses.

    As you point out, the most important consideration is risk tolerance. That was the starting point for me when I designed my portfolio. It helps to actually visualize the real numbers based on your projected portfolio targets, not just percentage losses. Few people with let’s say a 3MM target portfolio are able to see that shrink to 1.7MM within a year without losing sleep over it.

    I think one of Bernstein’s books had sound advice on risk tolerance, “sell down to the sleeping point.”

    Reply
  4. I rode the 100% large cap growth MF from 91 to 2016, rebalanced to 65%/35% as I saw ret on the horizon (’19) and left a year early (’18) on my terms! I did over 9%/yr avg return for those 25 yrs… became an early TSP millionaire! Drawing pension & TSP now, with v hefty untapped & unneeded trad & roth iras that i have to sequence tapping too… will collect SS at 70 (10 yrs for me, 15 for spouse), but likely only for health care costs. I may have been lucky, but my 100% in never panicked me. I have faith in America, and believed we’d come back from pandemic too. Made some moves for good s/term gains when stocks tanked last spring… selling the airline & gas/oil company stocks now to pad what looks to be a very healthy ret! I agree it was risky but my plan worked as I accepted the rollercoaster dips w/the gains. Always like to hear the ‘contrarian’ view tho – thanks POF!

    Reply
    • Bonds reduce volatility and offer some downside protection to your portfolio, but if you’ve got the guts to stick to an all-stock portfolio through thick and thin, it can work out quite well. You’re living proof, and you’re not alone. I also feel that when you’ve got a nest egg much larger than you’ll need based on your anticipated and desired lifestyle, you can afford to take more risk.

      Cheers!
      -PoF

      Reply
  5. my pension and SS are “bond” part of portfolio that will cover all necessary living expenses. so 100% equity is fine with me.
    Things maybe different this time. There will be time everything comes down like 2008.

    Reply
    • That makes sense. Your invested assets may be 100% stock, but if you assigned a dollar value to the 2 big fixed income streams you’ve got, it would look like a much more balanced portfolio.

      Cheers!
      -PoF

      Reply

Leave a Comment