Maximum expected value isn't the same thing as best distribution of results. The levered portfolio does better in expectation, but at the cost of being in for a

Maximum expected value isn't the same thing as best distribution of results. The levered portfolio does better in expectation, but at the cost of being in for a really bad time in a bear market. Plus, many investors can't stomach the losses of a 100% equities portfolio, let alone something levered up. >How do we reconcile this? Intuitively, the function of your age needs to be included in this equation (I think somebody commented on this already). Age is a proxy for funding amount. A lot of investment goals aren't just "maximize the amount of money I get". They often care about things like "I need to spend $X/yr in retirement". So your investment goal should also put some weight on how likely it is to sustain that, and a higher bond percentage at higher investment amounts will do that.