Over the long term, stocks have higher returns than bonds. What makes you think that is true? We simply do not have enough data to judge. Books like Stocks f

Over the long term, stocks have higher returns than bonds. What makes you think that is true? We simply do not have enough data to judge. Books like Stocks for the Long Run use incredibly poor methodology, because they left companies that failed out of their indexes ( http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/stocks-for-not-so-long-run.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/stocks-for-not-so-lon... ). And when we have reliable data, for the past forty years for instance, stocks have not necessarily had better returns. If you include other countries in the analysis, such as Japan, then the long term superiority of stocks looks even more suspect. And of course, past data is not predictive of future performance because the nature of investing changes (changes in corporate governance, changes in shareholder accountability, too much "dumb money" entering the market due to 401k plans, etc). Dividend payout rates, for instance, have declined dramatically, and dividends are a major component of returns. So maybe stocks did perform better in the past, but will not in the future because of lower payouts. Stocks may perform better in the next thirty years or they may not. There is no substitute for studying the market, understanding what is driving the returns, and making a judgement based on the current times.