Per micky:

Also, I'm told as one gets close to retirement, the fraction in stocks
should go down and the fraction in bonds should go up.

That's what I was told too - by the professional investment advisor that
my-neighbor-the-lawyer relies on.

I think the rationale is that as one gets older, liquidity becomes more
important and there is less chance that one can ride out negative market
fluctuations.

But my reaction was that, with interest rates effectively zero, there is
only one direction that bond values can go: down as the
hopefully-inevitable rise in interest rates occurs.

So it seems like replacing the short-term uncertainty of stocks with the
medium-term certainty that bonds will lose value is not such a clear-cut
decision.

I worked as the second-longest-running contractor in Vanguard's history
for something like 7-8 years and the reason I stick with them
financially is that I know firsthand that they *own* the concept of
integrity.

Frankly, they have become something of a PITA to deal with. They don't
really want to see you face-to-face, although they will if you insist,
but I can live with that because I do not make very many changes.

I also buy into Bogle's spiel about the effect of commissions/fees on
one's return - although I guess there are plenty of no-fee funds out
there besides Vanguards...
--
Pete Cresswell