Despite some flaws, I like the overall investment thesis. Traditional portfolio theory would say that 70% "safe" stocks (say, blue chips) plus 30% bonds is abou

Despite some flaws, I like the overall investment thesis. Traditional portfolio theory would say that 70% "safe" stocks (say, blue chips) plus 30% bonds is about the same as 50% "risky" stocks (say, small caps or emerging markets) plus 50% bonds. Assume for the sake of argument that the math works out, and that the two portfolios have the same expected return. But those portfolios are only equal if you believe the future will look a lot like the past. If you take black swans into account, the portfolio with the higher "safe" allocation is preferable. If Peak Oil or Nuke War or Famine drives stocks down by 90% for several decades, the 70/30 portfolio leaves you with 37% of your wealth, while the 50/50 portfolio leaves you with 55%. My black swan portfolio would look like this: * 25% bonds (US treasuries) * 25% tips (inflation-protected bonds) * 25% US small cap value stocks * 25% international small cap value stocks I'd consider adding in precious metals if they weren't so hot right now.