>>You are correct except that doing this over 10 years somewhat removes the 'ignoring the volatility' argument. Only lessens it slightly. There are plenty of b

>>You are correct except that doing this over 10 years somewhat removes the 'ignoring the volatility' argument. Only lessens it slightly. There are plenty of bad 10-year periods you wouldn't be happy with if you were 50-55 years old with all your money in stocks, not to mention an index fund tracking the S&P500 rather than the full index. Obviously holding index funds that are primarily stocks is the play when you are younger, but risk-adjusted returns matter a lot more for someone with big money as they approach retirement. It's worth exchanging returns for lower volatility down the line. Not that I think this bet could have turned out any other way, of course...