The more time you have, the more stocks will be more profitable than savings.
If money is withdrawn in 7 years or less, not sure which would have more money (stocks or savings account), I would say 50-50 as to which is better.
If money is withdrawn in 10 years or less, there are more times that stocks would have more money (I might guess 60-40) and the amounts stocks would have more might be significant (34% for cash at 3%; 250% for equities at 10%).
If money has 15 years or less, stocks would win most of the time (75-25 or 80-20 is my guess) and differences would be even greater (55% for cash at 3% vs 417% for stocks at 10%).
If time horizon is greater than 15 years, I believe history has shown stocks have beaten cash 100% of the time. This is what your father was thinking when he passed on the advice.
If some money is needed in 4 years, some is needed in 10, and most is not needed for 20, then you have a financial problem which is more complex and will involve some cash, some bonds and some stocks.
The longer you are invested in stocks, the less risk you have (because time will remove principal risk).
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
|
