<prompt> Human: I hear a lot about how I should have a higher percentage of my retirement investments in lower risk funds like bonds as I get closer to retirement for the purposes of risk mitigation. However, when I run scenarios I will always end up with more money at retirement if I just keep investing in mutual funds large cap, mid cap, small cap, and international with nothing in bonds. There is more variance in what that number might be in 30 years with mutual funds but it still ends with a higher number. I feel this is one of those things that someone came up with some day and everyone started to repeat it because it sounds smart. What am I missing here?Edit: this is more questioning the the percentage of bonds in your portfolio should be your age rule ie. Im 30 so 30 of my portfolio should be bonds  <response>: Most people dont like, or cant afford, to experience major volatility when they have no other source of income other than their retirement funds. Also this seems like a textbook case of the time diversification fallacy. Your risky investments dont get less risky the longer you hold them. 