Why You Should Stick With Stocks

Nov. 24, 2009 — -- After the beating we took in 2008 and early 2009, many investors opted for more conservative portfolios.

That meant less emphasis on stocks, more on cash and bonds. The evidence of this trend can be seen in the money that has poured into bond mutual funds this year compared to a trickle into stock funds.

This is a predictable response when the stock prices fall close to 50 percent in the span of a year.

But some recent reading I've done reminds me why stocks must play a central role in most investors' portfolio, particularly when it comes to retirement planning.

First, there is a recent study from T. Rowe Price, the Baltimore-based mutual fund outfit. This study reviewed what would have been the best kind of portfolio for investors to adopt just prior to the brutal 1973-1974 bear market. During this period, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell more than 40 percent.

T. Rowe Price chose the 1973-1974 bear market because it is the most recent that provides 30 years of subsequent investing history to study.

The two hypothetical investors considered in the T. Rowe Price study were a 65-year-old new retiree and a 45-year-old still 20 years away from retirement.

Had these investors had the benefit of foresight, what would have been the best portfolio type to own over the long haul?

Would they have been better off shifting to much more conservative portfolios just prior to the bear market? Or should they have stuck with a significant stock allocation that they reduced gradually over the years?

The T. Rowe Price conclusion is that for both investors, portfolios holding large amounts of stocks outdid either an all-cash or an all-bonds portfolio over the course of the next 30 years.