<prompt> Human: I see a lot of professionally managed funds and they almost always have some bonds thrown in them. Most will increase the as you get nearer to retirement.Seems to me that investing long term equity will always outperform bonds so why not go 100 equity? Any good reasons?Maybe when I get to retirement I will start switching slowly to a certain of bonds but then again keeping everything equity could be better as a whole even if on some years I will be forced to sell equity that is down. Seems like overall having more equity returning more should still be there better plan.As I read somewhere once. You will always get more by owning the company than by lending that company money.  <response>: Long term equity. The shorter term until you retire, the more harmful fluctuations in the market can be. Seeing how equity is a much more variable asset, this means your retirement fund can take a huge hit right before retirement, like it did in 2008. Since bonds are much more stable investments, the older you get, the more you should invest in them. Also, if the market tanks, bond prices can actually increase, since the lower an interest rate on a bond, the higher its worth. Therefore, they can be used to balance your investments.Remember, over time, stocks will out-perform bonds, but this is an average. On a yearly basis, they can do much better than bonds or much worse. 