BND
Vanguard Total Bond Market
stock NASDAQ ETF

Bonds are popular with retirees because they generate reliable income without having to sell of any of your assets. At current rates if you have $1M in a fund like BND it will give you roughly $40k/year income (and you get to keep the bonds).
When you are comparing graphs make sure you are looking at "with dividend" or "total return" numbers. When you include the dividends, BND is up (not down) over the past 1 year history.

While there are tons of good ETFs, here are a few to consider: VOO - US Large Cap, IWM - US Small Cap, VXUS - International, SCHD - Dividend and Income, BND - Bonds & Fixed Income, QQQM -US Technology Growth, SCHG - Broad Based Growth, VTV - Large Cap Value, VT - Global Market

Bonds like BND are safer than most stocks in that they are typically less volatile but basically nothing is perfectly safe. Some value is held in the market value of the bonds but most of the return is in the dividends.
High yield bonds like HYG are especially volatile and move with the market. USA treasury bonds like SGOV has very little volatility beyond its saw tooth monthly graph pattern and can avoid state tax but their yield is entirely dependent on the fed rate.
I'm not thrilled by the idea of being heavy into bonds. It's best to find a diverse assortment beyond just bonds at retirement because wealth retention becomes more important than volatile growth. This could mean a combination mix with a money market, high yield savings, income focused stocks like SCHD, and other ideas. There isn't a set formula but more of a lot of people learning the hard way how much volatility they can handle after retirement.

As a general rule, you want higher growth funds and stocks in your Roth since the funds grow tax free and withdraw tax free. I would definitely not use a Roth to buy BND as it doesn’t take full advantage of the benefit.

Real talk, 95% equity at 77 is extremely aggressive unless there’s a very specific income buffer (pension, rental cashflow, etc.).
If the goal is stability + not worrying about drawdowns, most people shift toward core bond exposure like BND / AGG + some short-term treasuries (SGOV / TBIL type) rather than more single stocks.
A simple example setup could look like:
* 30–40% equities (broad S&P 500, not Mag 6 heavy)
* 40–50% core bonds (BND / AGG)
* 10–20% short-term treasuries or cash-like funds
That alone would massively reduce portfolio volatility without trying to “time” anything.
Right now the bigger risk isn’t missing upside, it’s sequencing risk if the market turns while withdrawals are happening.

Bonds carry two forms of risk (duration risk and credit risk).
Investors can tune their exposure to both as needed.
For younger investors who want a market hedge, you'll probably want to increase duration risk and decrease credit risk.
For retirees, you may want to minimize both risks for stability. Something like BSV comes to mind (the Vanguard Short Term Bond ETF).
[It generally has less volatility than BND, but higher returns than Treasury Bills.](https://testfol.io/?s=6TmAVuiT0pV)

>I've done some research and decided that chasing dividends is an ok strategy for very conservative retirees.
My only response might be there are better ways to smooth out returns vs chasing dividend stocks
While the argument that dividend stocks are usually older more mature companies that will have steady profits even in down turns they are still stock and are still risky
Dividend ETFs fell 30% with the market in the covid panic. So even a 100% dividend portfolio might be too risky for older retired people
Meaning if you play with the numbers you might see a portfolio of 70% SCHD / 30% BND sort of perform the same as 60% VOO / 40% BND
SCHD might be a bit safer but you offset this by holding less bonds, Or VOO might be more risky but you offset this by holding more bonds
Either way you sort of get similar risk adjusted returns

Hi all - I have funded my first Roth IRA, and have \~$14500 waiting to be allocated.
My brokerage account already has VTI/VXUS/BND.
I'm trying to figure out where to invest my Roth funds.
I assume some kind of broad fund like the above would do, but I've been warned about doing the same exact funds due to potential wash sale issues down the line. I've read a bit about them, but don't clearly understand them. Like do they apply only if I have literally VTI in both accounts, or would it also apply if I had VTI in one and VOO in another, since there is so much overlap?
Target Fund Dates were also suggested as an option, and I'm considering it. However, I'm not sure exactly what my retirement timeline will be. I'm 46, very tired of my corporate career, and interested in the FIRE community, including something akin to CoastFIRE, where I could hit a number where I know the portfolio should grow to sufficient by retirement age, and at that point downshift to lower paying part time work. So I'm a little wary of locking up funds on the wrong timeline, or even having them revert to too conservative too soon.

Value of BND and BLV just keep sinking US government debt basically junk bonds

70/15/15 looks reasonable to me at 39. It’s 85% stocks and 15% bonds, so still growth-focused but with some cushion.
I ran a quick breakdown here: https://portfoliometrics.net/ai-assistant/9cr2HPy1Dk
At Fidelity, you can use VTI, VXUS, and BND just fine. The Fidelity versions would be FSKAX for US total market, FTIHX for international, and FXNAX for bonds.
Only thing I’d note is that 15% international is a bit US-heavy, but that’s fine if it’s intentional. I’d use Fidelity mutual funds if you want easy automatic investing, or ETFs if you care about portability later.

>I already addressed the separate inflation consideration. Whether you purchase a bond or a bond fund you are affected equally by the devaluing of the dollar.
Ok, great. Agree.
>You keep giving examples that are out of the scope of my claim.
Agree that liability-matching (e.g., known nominal tuition payment 6 months from now) is a case where the "hold to maturity" caveat makes sense. Disagree that the concept of liability-matching is applicable to generic retirement planning, wherein future liabilities are subject to economy-wide inflation and other uncertainty besides. The scope of your original comment was generic retirement planning, because that is what OP asked about (in addition to 529 obligations which are sufficiently far in the future to work the same way; the kid's not 18 yet).
If you just mean that individual bonds are a good solution for liability-matching specific known liabilities: agree. That's a different use case from a long-term retirement portfolio.
>You have a down payment for a house or a child's tuition bill coming in 6 months and you need to park some money for it. If you put it in BND then you may or may not have the money when you need it. If you put it in a high quality bond it is literally guaranteed to return your principal plus the amount of interest of the bond.
This is equally true of bonds inside a fund, **assuming similar duration and credit quality.** If you anticipate expenses 6 months out, something like SGOV is a perfectly prudent way to save for those.
The reason BND is inappropriate is its much longer duration (~6 years), not the fund structure. A 6-year individual bond would be similarly risky for a child's tuition bill 6 months out, in spite of being an individual bond that you can optionally hold to maturity. BND also includes a lot of credit risk which you're claiming not to consider.
>Nothing I'm talking about includes long treasuries since I am not talking about long-term investing and I'm not talking about selling the bond before maturity.
My point is bond volatility due to rate changes is mainly a function of the duration of the bonds in question. I am pushing back on apples-to-oranges comparisons like comparing a 6-month TBill to BND.
If you're not talking about long-term investing then your advice is highly misleading to OP because they are trying to save for retirement.

You are nitpicking my wording. I already addressed the separate inflation consideration. Whether you purchase a bond or a bond fund you are affected equally by the devaluing of the dollar.
If you buy a high quality bond and hold to maturity your returns are 100% predictable and you are unaffected by the resale value since by nature of bonds you get your principal back with interest without ever selling.
You keep giving examples that are out of the scope of my claim. You have a down payment for a house or a child's tuition bill coming in 6 months and you need to park some money for it. If you put it in BND then you may or may not have the money when you need it. If you put it in a high quality bond it is literally guaranteed to return your principal plus the amount of interest of the bond.
Nothing I'm talking about includes long treasuries since I am not talking about long-term investing and I'm not talking about selling the bond before maturity.

Respectfully, have you read the information about this sub and its philosophy? Check out the links in the sidebar like the Boglehead wiki. Buy and hold broad based diversified index funds, like VT or VTI/VXUS and BND. Paying a percentage of assets for “advice” is throwing money away. Get a fee-based advice only manager. That will cost anywhere from a few hundred to maybe $12k a year, much less than you’re paying.

I failed to mention that I have about 60% currently with my advisor which I will be switching, and about 40% in T-bills that I can access for the next 4-5 years if needed etc. It's probably overkill as I also have a stable income, That would not really change your advice right? 60% T - bill, and with the other 40% put a majority into VT and the rest in BND etc?

I was thinking of going the three fund portfolio and mix a bit of these
* **Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI)** or **Mutual Fund (VTSAX)**
* **Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS)** or **Mutual Fund (VTIAX)**
* **Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND)** or **Mutual Fund (VBTLX)**
I still have much learning to do. Appreciate all the inputs.

All you need to do is combine VT and BND at a good ratio 

> VTI is mainly SPYM anyway but slightly higher ER and more junk at the bottom.
If you believe in reasonably efficient markets, then the "junk at the bottom" should be priced accurately, lowering until the expected return ~= the market. So VTI is a miniscule 0.01% ER for extra diversification benefit.
> 30 SPYM, 30 VXUS, 20 BND and 20 AVUV. Is that reasonable per Bogle standards?
Yes, in isolation, this is in the realm of reasonable.
AVUV you have to be prepared for decades of underperformance, the small cap value premium has historically showed up in small bursts and is greatly reduced since Fama & French's paper was published. Given the past history of "chasing trends and selling at losses" it is probably not a good idea

Hey everyone, looking for some feedback on my current portfolio.
About me:
* 20 years old, student and part-time worker
* Investing $250/month consistently
* 20+ year time horizon
* Goal: long-term wealth building
Current allocation:
* VOO — $200/month (80%)
* VXUS — $50/month (20%)
I recently dropped BND from my portfolio. At my age I felt bonds were slowing down my long-term growth potential and I have enough time to ride out market volatility.
My questions:
1. Does this allocation make sense for my age and horizon?
2. Is 20% international (VXUS) too much, too little, or about right?
3. Should I be including bonds at all at 20 years old?
4. Any other suggestions for someone just starting out?
Thanks in advance.

VT and BND

BND because I’m a masochist