Yes, sure, it was a simplification. And probably not Markowitz paper will display verbatim "you buy fixed income as "risk free" asset". But I think you're nitpi

Yes, sure, it was a simplification. And probably not Markowitz paper will display verbatim "you buy fixed income as "risk free" asset". But I think you're nitpicking. Markowitz defined the Modern Portfolio Theory as working with risk-free assets. Sure, that does not exist. But there are approximations. FI is normally used as such. Also: > No knowledgeable person will refer fixed income as "low risk government one". Being knowledgeable is not something binary, and you have lots of people in the internet talking about holding stocks and bonds. Whenever you see investment advice stating "hold your age as percentage of FI", they are not referring to junk bonds, nor securitizations or whatnot. They are talking about low risk, low yield, typically government bonds. EDIT: Context is also to consider. In some contexts, people equate both things. In any case, rereading my post, it now sounds a little bit defensive, so sorry for that.