Thanks Sarenco,
That's exactly the angle I've been wondering about - my question got distorted slightly as it was moved from another thread.
Rather than commenting right now on your approach, just to explain further where I'm coming from. I suppose the question was prompted by Marc's view that "age in bonds" is passé so I was seeking Marc's views on an acceptable upper range for equities (for ARFers).
Meanwhile, Brendan has chimed in that the ARF investor "should" invest 100% in equities (so long as the house has been paid off, etc. which is kinda what I meant by "normal" investor - figuring it to be a reasonable working assumption).
So, in essence, Marc is saying 35% equities (at 65) and reducing thereafter as one's age increases is too low - (which, incidentally, I agree with) and Brendan is broadly saying 100% equities (which I think is too high - certainly for most people).
What I'd like is for all posters, and particularly the financial adviser community, to address this asset allocation question. [Obviously - given the thread of the weekend, we all know where our resident tax guru stands!]
I think this is a really important question and I have asked it before but do not recall ever seeing an answer from the adviser community. The bottom line is I'd like to know how advisers deal with this asset allocation question in practice, the basis for subsequent re-balancing, etc.
I suppose if we divide assets between defensive and return-seeking, where do people invest their defensive assets in current market conditions?
Finally, what I'm really, really interested in is:
1. The data such advice is based on; and
2. What specific guidance is given by the relevant professional bodies that advisers belong?