Yeah, BA. . .I don't mean to be argumentative (but I will be, huh, lol). . .I suppose you could place the blame on the specific asset allocation recommended to the public the last 20 years -
100 - age = % stocks/equities
vs. the buy and hold approach/philosophy.
Whether the target funds followed the 100 - age approach when allocating for their Targets. . .I"m not sure really (don't have a target fund other than for college)
That being said. . .I think that's kind of a misdirect. Yeah. . .if a person who was 60 y.o. had been 90% bonds instead of 60% bonds, would have he/she done better? Yeah, a little.
Enough to not delay retirement?
I"m not sure. I don't think so. Frankly, they would have had to been very much in cash. I think you are copping out a little when you are basically saying that "buying and holding" is not the same as "asset allocation choice." Yeah. . .it's not. . .but they are joined at the hip.
I mean, c'mon. . .if you are going to "buy and hold", what do you think is the proper asset allocation for a 50 year old?
Are we going with 70 - age now? Or now the correction of a lifetime has happened are we going with 120 - age? I'm not picking on you BA so don't feel singled out. . .I think your reply is representative of the rest of the forum and if I was sitting across the mahogany desk of a financial advisor with me with crossed arms who had me deployed at 100 - age asset allocation.
"Oh, Scanner. . .it's not the buy and hold philosophy. . .I just had your asset allocation all wrong. Oops. Sorry about that retirement. . .looks like you are going to have to pop spines 5 more years. . .don't worry. . .the market will come back. It always does."
