From: Will Trice 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Options for fixed payouts
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:39:19 -0500
	processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox7.ucsd.edu;
	Thu, 21 September 2006 19:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
	iQBVAwUARRNM1/l/I4+O31e5AQGRYwH8DoOxO+8S8sMBu9xvqetYVNsb6Akqsl47
	T42rblPeCy+xL8bNYEudvdrRVueHPB8eBoA//KkBxT7CIVp9D56u1w==
	=rgim



Elle wrote:

> The main theme is that an all-stock allocation is superior 
> for the long run, risk-wise and return-wise.
> 
> We do not agree about what my sources state. What would be 
> more helpful to this discussion is if you produced fresh 
> sources that explicitly state what you seem to claim: That 
> the standard deviation of bond returns for long terms is 
> lower than that for stocks. 

Well, the sources I'll cite are not necessarily fresh.  First, there is 
my previous quote about *actual market data* from
http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~campbell/papers/atlantatalk.pdf

Then I'll direct you to the Monte Carlo simulation on the site you 
cited: http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/risk/longterm.htm

Run it for stocks over 20 years, and then for bonds over 20 years. 
Compare the widths of the bell curves (which is described by the 
standard deviation).  You'll find the bond curve to be considerably 
narrower.

-Will