For decades, the 60/40 portfolio has been one of investing’s most reliable rules of thumb: Put 60% of your money in stocks for growth, 40% in bonds for stability, rebalance occasionally and let time do the rest.
But one of the world’s largest investment firms is suggesting it may be time to flip that script. Recent statements from Vanguard, amid widespread worries about a stock-market bubble thanks to the frothy AI industry, suggest that a 40/60 portfolio – more bonds, fewer stocks – could deliver similar returns with less risk in today’s market environment (1).
It’s not a declaration that the 60/40 rule is dead. But it is a signal that the assumptions behind it may no longer be as sturdy as they once were.
The appeal of the 60/40 portfolio has always been balance. Stocks historically deliver higher returns over the long term, but with sharp ups and downs. Bonds tend to grow more slowly, but they provide income and a cushion against volatility. Together, they can help provide a smooth ride to greater wealth, especially for investors nearing retirement or saving for goals within the next decade.
That framework worked particularly well in a world where bonds reliably delivered positive returns and the stock market had a broad variety of well performing companies across different industries.
But the last 10 to 15 years have been anything but typical. U.S. stocks, led by a small group of mega-cap tech companies – and in recent years, the advance of AI – have surged. The S&P 500 provided an annualized return of nearly 16% over the past decade (2). Bonds, meanwhile, struggled through years of low yields and recent losses tied to rising interest rates.
But by Vanguard’s analysis, U.S. stocks are now expensive relative to historical norms, and their value is unusually concentrated in a handful of companies.
“By almost any measure you can look at, the equity market is overvalued,” Roger Aliaga-Díaz, global head of portfolio construction at Vanguard, told USA Today (3).
At the same time, higher interest rates mean bonds now offer more attractive yields – and potentially better returns going forward – than they did for much of the past decade. For investors who may need to tap their portfolios in the next five to 10 years, Vanguard says shifting toward bonds could reduce volatility without meaningfully sacrificing expected returns.
Read More: The average net worth of Americans is a surprising $620,654. But it almost means nothing. Here’s the number that counts (and how to make it skyrocket)
Vanguard isn’t suggesting that everyone dump stocks or abandon diversification. Its proposed 40/60 framework still holds meaningful equity exposure, just less of it.
In a sample allocation outlined in a December report from the firm, bonds make up the majority, split between U.S. and international markets. The stock portion leans toward value stocks, small-cap companies, and non-U.S. equities, areas Vanguard believes offer better long-term prospects than currently overpriced U.S. growth stocks (4).
The logic is straightforward. If stock returns are lower over the next decade than they were over the last one – something many forecasters expect, including Vanguard and Goldman Sachs — bonds don’t need to outperform stocks to play a bigger role in portfolios. They just need to hold their own while dampening the impact of swings in a chaotic market (5).
That makes the approach most relevant for investors with shorter time horizons: people close to retirement, those planning to fund college expenses, or anyone who can’t afford a major drawdown at the wrong moment. For them, avoiding large losses may matter more than chasing every last percentage point of return.
Importantly, Vanguard frames the 40/60 idea as a concept, not a mandate. Someone who is very risk tolerant, with an aggressive 80/20 portfolio, may not need to leap to 40/60. A more modest adjustment, such as a 70/30 split, may accomplish the same goal.
This is where nuance matters. Critics point out that long-term wealth creation has historically come from owning stocks, not bonds. If you’re decades away from retirement, reducing stock exposure too early could mean missing out on future growth – even if returns are more muted than in the recent past.
There’s also the psychological hurdle. Bonds have disappointed many investors recently, while stocks have rewarded patience. Asking people to buy more of what’s been lagging – and less of what’s been winning – runs against instinct.
That doesn’t mean Vanguard’s concerns are misplaced. Concentration of investments too heavily into a few categories is a problem, as is potential overvaluation of stocks – especially in the so-called AI bubble. And higher bond yields change the equation.
The takeaway isn’t that investors should blindly flip their allocations. Age, goals, risk tolerance, and when you’ll need the money all matter more than sticking rigidly to any rule.
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.
Yahoo Finance (1); S&P Global (2); USA Today (3); Vanguard (4); Goldman Sachs (5)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
