Stocks vs Bonds: What's Safer for Long-Term Investors in 2026?
Discover the real differences between stocks and bonds, which is actually safer over time, and how to balance both for maximum returns with manageable risk.
By CashSmartGuide Editorial Team - Last updated: January 2026 | 18 min read
Every investor faces the same fundamental question: should I put my money in stocks or bonds? The answer might surprise you. While bonds feel safer because they are less volatile, stocks have actually proven safer for long-term wealth building when you measure what truly matters - your purchasing power decades from now.
I have spent years studying investment data, and here is what the numbers show: over any 20-year period in history, stocks have never lost to inflation. Bonds? They have lost purchasing power multiple times. This guide will break down everything you need to understand about stocks versus bonds so you can make informed decisions about your money.
Whether you are saving for retirement in 30 years or building wealth over the next decade, understanding the real risk and return profiles of stocks and bonds is crucial. By the end of this article, you will know exactly how to balance these two asset classes for your specific situation.
Table of Contents
- 1. Stocks vs Bonds: The Basics Explained
- 2. Which Is Actually Safer?
- 3. Historical Returns Comparison
- 4. Understanding Real Risk vs Perceived Risk
- 5. How Your Timeline Changes Everything
- 6. The Right Stock-Bond Mix for You
- 7. Real-World Portfolio Scenarios
- 8. When Bonds Make Sense
- 9. Frequently Asked Questions
Stocks vs Bonds: The Basics Explained
Before we dive into safety and returns, let me explain what stocks and bonds actually are. These are fundamentally different investments with completely different characteristics.
What Are Stocks?
When you buy a stock, you are purchasing ownership in a company. Buy Apple stock and you own a tiny piece of Apple. As the company grows, innovates, and increases profits, your ownership becomes more valuable. Stocks represent the growth engine of capitalism itself.
Here is the key thing about stocks: their value fluctuates constantly based on company performance, economic conditions, and investor sentiment. On any given day, your stocks might be up 2% or down 3%. During recessions, they can drop 40-50%. But over long periods, they have consistently grown because companies adapt, innovate, and increase their earnings.
Think of stocks like planting apple trees. Year one might bring a storm that damages branches. Year two could be a drought. But by year ten, you have mature trees producing abundant fruit year after year. Short-term volatility is the price you pay for long-term growth.
What Are Bonds?
Bonds are loans you make to companies or governments. You lend $1,000 to the US Treasury, and they promise to pay you back with interest over time. A 10-year Treasury bond paying 4% gives you $40 annually for ten years, then returns your $1,000.
Bonds feel safer because you know exactly what you will receive (assuming no default). Your $1,000 bond paying 4% will deliver precisely $40 each year. No surprises. No volatility. The trade-off? Much lower returns than stocks over time, and your money loses purchasing power to inflation.
Here is the problem most people miss: that guaranteed $40 per year buys less and less as inflation erodes purchasing power. In 20 years, your $40 might only have the buying power of $25 in today's dollars. Your bond kept your principal safe, but you actually got poorer in real terms.
Key Difference Summary
Stocks: Ownership with variable returns. High short-term volatility but strong long-term growth. Returns typically 8-10% annually over decades.
Bonds: Fixed-income loans with predictable returns. Low volatility but lower growth. Returns typically 3-6% annually, often barely beating inflation.
Which Is Actually Safer? The Surprising Answer
Most people believe bonds are safer than stocks. After all, bonds do not fluctuate wildly in value like stocks do. But this confuses short-term comfort with long-term safety. True safety means protecting and growing your purchasing power over time, not just avoiding daily price swings.
Short-Term Safety: Bonds Win
If you need your money in one to three years, bonds are absolutely safer. Stock markets can drop 30-40% in any given year. The 2008 financial crisis saw stocks fall 37%. COVID-19 triggered a 34% drop in March 2020. If you needed that money to buy a house or pay tuition, you would have been devastated.
Bonds barely budged during these crashes. A portfolio of Treasury bonds might have lost 2-5% at worst. For money you need soon, bonds provide crucial stability. This is why financial advisors recommend bonds for short-term goals under five years.
Long-Term Safety: Stocks Dominate
Here is where it gets interesting. Over any rolling 20-year period since 1926, stocks have never failed to beat inflation by a significant margin. Not once. Even if you bought at the worst possible moment right before the 1929 crash, 20 years later you had still built real wealth.
Bonds? They have lost to inflation during multiple 20-year periods, especially when interest rates were low and inflation ran higher than expected. From 1960 to 1980, bond investors actually lost purchasing power despite getting their principal back with interest.
Think about what this means: the "safe" investment made you poorer over 20 years, while the "risky" investment built wealth. This is the paradox that most people never grasp until it is too late.
The Real Risk Nobody Talks About
The biggest risk is not market crashes. It is not hitting your retirement date with enough money to live comfortably for 30+ years. Playing it too safe with bonds can mean working longer, retiring with less, or running out of money in your 80s.
Consider two 30-year-olds saving for retirement at age 65. Person A invests $500 monthly in stocks averaging 9% returns. Person B plays it safe with bonds averaging 4% returns. After 35 years, Person A has $1.36 million. Person B has just $426,000. Same contributions, but Person A has three times more money because they accepted short-term volatility for long-term growth.
Historical Returns Comparison: The Numbers Don't Lie
Let me show you the actual data from nearly 100 years of market history. These numbers are based on research from leading financial institutions and historical market data going back to 1926.
| Investment Type | Average Annual Return | Best Year | Worst Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large-Cap Stocks (S&P 500) | 10.2% | +54% (1933) | -43% (1931) |
| Small-Cap Stocks | 12.1% | +143% (1933) | -58% (1937) |
| Long-Term Government Bonds | 5.5% | +40% (1982) | -15% (2009) |
| Corporate Bonds | 6.2% | +43% (1982) | -8% (2008) |
| Inflation | 3.0% | +18% (1946) | -10% (1932) |
What This Data Actually Means
Stocks returned 10.2% annually versus bonds at 5.5%. That might sound like a small difference, but compound interest turns that gap into a massive wealth disparity over decades.
Here is a concrete example: $100,000 invested for 30 years at 10% grows to $1.74 million. The same amount at 5.5% becomes just $505,000. You end up with more than three times the money by accepting stock market volatility.
Notice also that inflation averaged 3% annually. Bonds returning 5.5% only gave you 2.5% real returns after inflation. Stocks gave you 7.2% real returns. This gap compounds into generational wealth differences.
The Power of Time in the Market
Time dramatically reduces stock volatility. In any single year, stocks might be up 30% or down 40%. But as your timeframe extends, returns become remarkably consistent. Over rolling 10-year periods since 1926, stocks have been positive 94% of the time. Over 20-year periods? 100% of the time.
This is why young investors should heavily favor stocks. A 25-year-old saving for retirement at 65 has 40 years for short-term volatility to smooth out into reliable long-term growth. That same 40-year period has never failed to deliver strong real returns.
Understanding Real Risk vs Perceived Risk
Most people get risk backwards. They focus on volatility (how much prices bounce around) instead of permanent capital loss or insufficient returns. Let me reframe how you should think about investment risk.
Volatility Is Not the Same as Risk
Seeing your portfolio drop 20% feels terrible. I get it. But if you do not sell, you have not lost anything. Stock prices recover. Every single market crash in history has been followed by new all-time highs. The average bear market lasts 9-12 months, then markets spend years climbing higher.
Volatility only becomes real loss when you panic and sell at the bottom. This is why having the right time horizon is critical. If you need money in two years, stock volatility is genuine risk. If you need it in 20 years, volatility is just noise.
The Three Types of Real Investment Risk
1. Inflation Risk (The Silent Wealth Killer)
Inflation averages 3% per year. At that rate, your purchasing power cuts in half every 24 years. Money earning 2% in bonds is actually losing 1% annually in real terms. Over 30 years, you will have lost 26% of your purchasing power despite earning interest. Stocks historically beat inflation by 7% annually, protecting and growing your real wealth.
2. Longevity Risk (Outliving Your Money)
People are living into their 90s routinely now. Retire at 65 and you need your money to last 30 years while inflation erodes purchasing power. Conservative bond portfolios often cannot sustain withdrawals for three decades. Stock-heavy portfolios have historically supported 4% annual withdrawals indefinitely. Playing it too safe might mean running out of money at age 85.
3. Opportunity Risk (Missing Growth)
Every dollar in bonds earning 4% is a dollar not in stocks earning 10%. Over 40 years, this opportunity cost is enormous. Being too conservative in your 30s and 40s can cost you hundreds of thousands in retirement. Missing out on compound growth is one of the most expensive financial mistakes people make, yet it feels safe in the moment.
Why Bonds Feel Safer But May Not Be
Bonds provide psychological comfort because the number in your account stays relatively stable. You see $50,000 and it is still $50,000 next week. This stability feels safe. But remember, you cannot buy groceries or pay rent with stability - you need purchasing power.
Meanwhile, your stock portfolio might show $50,000 one month, $45,000 the next, then $55,000 three months later. The volatility causes anxiety even though the long-term trend is sharply upward. Our brains are wired to fear losses more than we value equivalent gains, making stocks feel riskier than they actually are for long-term investors.
How Your Timeline Changes Everything
Your investment timeline is the single most important factor in determining your stock-bond allocation. The right mix for someone retiring in two years is completely different from someone starting their career at age 25.
Timeline Under 3 Years: Bonds Dominate
Recommended allocation: 80-100% bonds, 0-20% stocks
Saving for a house down payment in two years? Wedding in 18 months? Tuition payment next fall? Keep this money in bonds or high-yield savings accounts. Three years is not enough time to ride out a potential 30-40% stock market drop.
Yes, you will earn lower returns, but you will have the money when you need it. Stock market crashes do not follow convenient schedules. The last thing you want is a market crash forcing you to postpone buying a home or taking out loans.
Timeline 3-5 Years: Balanced Approach
Recommended allocation: 40-60% stocks, 40-60% bonds
This middle ground works for medium-term goals. Three to five years gives you some ability to recover from stock market downturns while still capturing some equity growth. A 50-50 portfolio provides balance between growth and stability.
This allocation is also appropriate for people within 5-10 years of retirement who want to start de-risking their portfolio. You are beginning to transition from growth mode to preservation mode.
Timeline 5-10 Years: Stock-Focused
Recommended allocation: 70-80% stocks, 20-30% bonds
Now we are talking about timeframes where stocks historically shine. Five to ten years is long enough to recover from most market crashes while capturing strong growth. The 20-30% bond allocation provides some stability without sacrificing too much return potential.
This works well for people in their 50s planning to retire around age 65, or for specific goals like funding a child's college education that is 8 years away.
Timeline 10-20 Years: Heavy Stock Allocation
Recommended allocation: 85-95% stocks, 5-15% bonds
With 10-20 years until you need the money, you can ride out multiple market cycles. History shows that over rolling 15-year periods, stocks have delivered positive real returns 99% of the time. Your small bond allocation provides minor stability without significantly dragging down returns.
This allocation suits investors in their 40s and early 50s, or anyone with medium-long term goals more than a decade away. You are old enough to have accumulated significant savings but young enough to recover from crashes.
Timeline 20+ Years: Maximum Stock Exposure
Recommended allocation: 90-100% stocks, 0-10% bonds
This is where stocks truly dominate. With 20+ years, you will survive multiple recessions and benefit from every subsequent recovery. Over any 20-year period in history, stocks have never failed to significantly beat inflation and bonds.
This aggressive allocation is perfect for investors in their 20s, 30s, and early 40s saving for retirement. You have decades to let compound interest work its magic. Short-term volatility is completely irrelevant to your long-term success.
Even holding 5-10% bonds at this stage is optional and mainly serves psychological purposes - it slightly reduces volatility for investors who might panic during crashes. If you can stomach seeing your portfolio drop 40% without selling, go 100% stocks.
The Right Stock-Bond Mix for You
Now that you understand how timeline affects allocation, let me share some practical frameworks for determining your personal stock-bond mix. Remember, these are guidelines, not absolute rules. Your risk tolerance and specific situation matter.
Age-Based Rules of Thumb
The Traditional Rule: 100 Minus Your Age
The old standard was to subtract your age from 100 to get your stock percentage. A 30-year-old would hold 70% stocks, while a 70-year-old would hold 30% stocks. This gradually reduces equity exposure as you age.
However, this rule was created when people retired at 65 and died at 75. With people now living into their 90s, many financial advisors consider this rule too conservative.
The Modern Rule: 110 or 120 Minus Your Age
Modern advisors often use 110 or even 120 minus your age for stock allocation. Using 110, a 30-year-old holds 80% stocks, and a 70-year-old holds 40% stocks. This accounts for longer lifespans and the need for continued growth even in retirement.
I personally lean toward the 120 rule for younger investors and the 110 rule for those over 50. This keeps you aggressive early when you have time to recover from crashes, while still de-risking appropriately as retirement approaches.
Risk Tolerance Adjustment
Age-based rules provide a starting point, but you need to adjust based on your personal risk tolerance. Can you watch your portfolio drop 35% during a crash without losing sleep or selling? If not, add more bonds even if you are young.
Here is a simple test: imagine your $50,000 portfolio drops to $35,000 over three months. How would you react? If you would panic and sell, you need more bonds. If you would get excited about buying more stocks at cheaper prices, you can handle more stock exposure.
Be honest with yourself. There is no shame in needing more bonds for peace of mind. A 60-40 portfolio you stick with through crashes beats a 90-10 portfolio you abandon at the worst moment. The best allocation is one you can maintain during market turmoil.
Sample Allocations by Life Stage
Ages 20-35: Maximum Growth Phase
Recommended: 90-100% stocks, 0-10% bonds
You have 30-45 years until retirement. This is your time to be aggressive. Even a 50% market crash recovers fully within 3-7 years historically, and you have decades ahead. Go heavy on stocks, consider 100% stocks if you can handle volatility. You might never get better buying opportunities than during crashes in your 20s and 30s.
Ages 35-50: Still Aggressive
Recommended: 80-90% stocks, 10-20% bonds
You still have 15-30 years to retirement. Stay stock-heavy to maximize growth. Adding 10-20% bonds provides minor stability without sacrificing much return potential. This is when many people start earning more money and can contribute larger amounts - keep them growing in stocks.
Ages 50-60: Transition Phase
Recommended: 65-75% stocks, 25-35% bonds
Retirement is 5-15 years away. Start gradually shifting toward bonds, but keep majority in stocks. You still need growth for retirement that might last 30+ years. This decade is about balancing continued growth with beginning to protect what you have accumulated.
Ages 60-70: Pre-Retirement and Early Retirement
Recommended: 50-60% stocks, 40-50% bonds
You are entering or in early retirement. Increase bonds for stability, but maintain stock exposure because you likely have 25-35 years of life ahead. A 50-50 portfolio provides good balance between protecting principal and continuing growth. Remember, retirement is not the end of investing - you need your money to last decades.
Ages 70+: Income and Preservation
Recommended: 30-40% stocks, 60-70% bonds
Focus shifts to income generation and capital preservation. However, keep 30-40% in stocks for continued growth and inflation protection. Even at 70, you might live another 20-25 years. Too conservative here means your money loses purchasing power to inflation during your later years.
Real-World Portfolio Scenarios
Let me show you how different stock-bond allocations perform in real market conditions. These scenarios use actual historical data to illustrate the trade-offs between growth and stability.
Scenario 1: The Young Aggressive Investor (25-Year-Old, 100% Stocks)
Starting investment: $10,000 plus $500 monthly for 40 years
Strategy: 100% S&P 500 index fund, never selling during crashes
Results at age 65: Approximately $2.1 million (assuming 9.5% average returns)
Experience along the way: This investor lived through 4-5 major crashes where their portfolio dropped 30-50%. In 2008, their $150,000 portfolio crashed to $95,000. Scary, but they kept investing. By 2013, they had $280,000. Every crash became a buying opportunity.
Lesson: Maximum volatility, maximum returns. This only works if you can truly stomach the crashes without selling. Most people cannot, which is why some bonds make sense even when young.
Scenario 2: The Balanced Investor (25-Year-Old, 80-20 Stock-Bond Mix)
Starting investment: $10,000 plus $500 monthly for 40 years
Strategy: 80% stocks, 20% bonds, rebalanced annually
Results at age 65: Approximately $1.7 million (assuming 8.5% average returns)
Experience along the way: During the 2008 crash, their $150,000 portfolio dropped to $105,000 instead of $95,000. The 20% bonds cushioned some of the blow. They slept better but gave up $400,000 in final wealth compared to 100% stocks.
Lesson: Slightly lower returns, slightly lower stress. This is a reasonable compromise for investors who want growth but cannot handle pure stock volatility.
Scenario 3: The Conservative Young Investor (25-Year-Old, 60-40 Stock-Bond Mix)
Starting investment: $10,000 plus $500 monthly for 40 years
Strategy: 60% stocks, 40% bonds, playing it safe despite young age
Results at age 65: Approximately $1.2 million (assuming 7% average returns)
Experience along the way: Crashes barely fazed them. 2008 saw their portfolio drop from $150,000 to only $115,000. Much less stressful, but they sacrificed $900,000 compared to the 100% stock investor.
Lesson: Playing it too safe when young is expensive. The opportunity cost of excessive bonds in your 20s-40s is massive. Unless you have severe anxiety about market volatility, this allocation is too conservative for a 25-year-old.
Scenario 4: The Near-Retiree (60-Year-Old, 50-50 Mix)
Starting investment: $500,000 saved, retiring in 5 years
Strategy: 50% stocks, 50% bonds to balance growth and protection
5-year returns: Portfolio grows to approximately $670,000 (assuming 6% average returns)
Experience along the way: If a crash happens two years before retirement, the portfolio might drop to $580,000 instead of $450,000 with all stocks. The bonds provide crucial stability when they cannot afford to delay retirement.
Lesson: This is appropriate de-risking. With retirement close, protecting capital becomes more important than maximizing growth. The 50% stocks still provide inflation protection for the 25+ year retirement ahead.
When Bonds Make Sense (And When They Don't)
After reading all this data favoring stocks, you might wonder if bonds ever make sense. They absolutely do - in specific situations. Here is when bonds are the right choice.
When You SHOULD Use Bonds
Short-Term Goals (Under 5 Years)
Saving for a house down payment, wedding, or any expense within five years? Bonds or high-yield savings accounts are the right choice. You cannot afford stock market volatility when you have a fixed deadline.
Within 10 Years of Retirement
Start shifting toward 40-50% bonds as retirement approaches. A major crash right before retirement can be devastating if you are 100% stocks. Bonds provide stability when your recovery time is limited. This is prudent risk management, not being overly conservative.
Peace of Mind Value
If 100% stocks keep you awake at night or cause you to panic-sell during crashes, bonds have real value. A portfolio you can stick with through volatility beats a theoretically optimal portfolio you abandon at the worst moment. Mental health matters. Add enough bonds to sleep well.
Rebalancing Opportunities
Having 10-20% bonds in your portfolio creates rebalancing opportunities. When stocks crash, you sell some bonds to buy stocks cheap. When stocks soar, you sell some to buy bonds. This forces you to buy low and sell high systematically.
Living Off Your Portfolio
Once retired and withdrawing money annually, bonds provide stability for near-term withdrawals while stocks grow for future needs. A common strategy is keeping 2-3 years of expenses in bonds so you never have to sell stocks during crashes. Learn more about retirement withdrawal strategies.
When You Should NOT Use Bonds
You're Under 40 With Decades Until Retirement
Being 30 years old with 60% bonds is leaving hundreds of thousands on the table. You have 35+ years to recover from crashes. Time is your greatest asset - use it. Heavy bond allocation when young is one of the costliest financial mistakes.
You're Trying to Time the Market
Moving to bonds because you think a crash is coming, then planning to switch back to stocks after the crash - this rarely works. Nobody can consistently predict market movements. Stay the course with your age-appropriate allocation.
Interest Rates Are Extremely Low
When bonds yield 1-2% and inflation is 3-4%, you are guaranteed to lose purchasing power. In these environments, even conservative investors should reconsider heavy bond allocations. Cash in high-yield savings accounts might serve better than low-yielding bonds.
You Have a Pension Covering Living Expenses
If you have a pension or Social Security covering all basic expenses, your investment portfolio is essentially a bonus. You can afford to be more aggressive with stocks since you are not dependent on the portfolio for income. The pension acts like bonds, providing your stability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I lose money in bonds?
Yes, bonds can lose value in two ways. First, if interest rates rise, existing bonds lose market value (though you get your principal back if you hold to maturity). Second, bonds can lose purchasing power to inflation even when earning interest. A bond paying 3% loses real value when inflation is 4%.
Individual bonds held to maturity guarantee your principal back (unless the issuer defaults). Bond funds fluctuate in value constantly and can show losses during rising interest rate periods.
Should I invest in individual bonds or bond funds?
For most investors, bond funds are the better choice. They provide instant diversification across hundreds of bonds, professional management, and easy buying and selling. Individual bonds require larger investments (typically $1,000-5,000 minimum per bond) and lack diversification unless you buy many bonds. Bond funds like BND or AGG offer total bond market exposure with low fees.
What about Treasury I-Bonds for inflation protection?
I-Bonds are excellent for short to medium-term savings with inflation protection. They adjust with inflation, protecting purchasing power. However, you can only buy $10,000 per year per person, and you cannot access the money for one year. They work great for emergency funds or savings goals 1-5 years out, but you cannot build a retirement portfolio with them due to purchase limits. They are a useful addition, not a complete solution.
How often should I rebalance my stock-bond allocation?
Once per year is sufficient for most investors. Some prefer rebalancing when allocations drift 5-10% from targets. For example, if your target is 80-20 stocks-bonds and it becomes 85-15 after a stock market surge, rebalance by selling some stocks and buying bonds. This forces you to sell high and buy low systematically. Rebalancing more frequently than annually creates unnecessary tax bills without meaningful benefit.
Are stocks really safer than bonds for retirement?
For long-term wealth building, yes. Stocks have never lost to inflation over 20+ year periods. However, as you approach and enter retirement, increasing bond allocation makes sense for stability. The ideal approach is stocks when young for maximum growth, gradually shifting toward 50-50 by retirement, then maintaining 30-40% stocks even in retirement for continued inflation protection. Pure stocks are safer for 40-year goals, balanced portfolios are safer for retirees needing income.
What if I'm 45 and still 100% stocks - should I add bonds now?
At 45, you likely have 20+ years until retirement. Staying 80-90% stocks is still reasonable. I would suggest gradually adding bonds to reach 80-20 by age 50, then 70-30 by age 55. Do not panic and suddenly shift to 50% bonds - that is too conservative for someone with two decades until retirement. Make gradual adjustments. The key is starting the shift toward bonds, not completing it overnight.
Should I have bonds in my 401k, IRA, or taxable account?
Bonds are best held in tax-advantaged accounts like 401k or IRA because bond interest is taxed as ordinary income. Stocks are more tax-efficient in taxable accounts because long-term capital gains have lower tax rates. Strategy: keep bonds in your 401k/IRA, keep stocks in taxable accounts when possible. This is called tax-location optimization and can save thousands in taxes over decades.
The Bottom Line: Choose Based on Your Timeline
After reviewing nearly 100 years of market data and real-world scenarios, the answer to "which is safer" depends entirely on your timeline. For money needed in 1-3 years, bonds win decisively. For money invested for 10+ years, stocks win overwhelmingly.
Most investors need both. The key is matching your allocation to your specific timeline and gradually adjusting as that timeline shortens. A 30-year-old should be 85-95% stocks. A 60-year-old approaching retirement should be 50-60% stocks. A 75-year-old retiree should still maintain 30-40% stocks for inflation protection during a potentially 20-year retirement.
The biggest mistake is playing it too safe when young. Every year you hold excessive bonds in your 20s, 30s, and 40s costs you tens of thousands in final retirement wealth. Time is your greatest asset - use it wisely by accepting short-term volatility for long-term growth.
Remember: the safest long-term investment is not the one that feels comfortable today, but the one that builds the wealth you need for tomorrow. For most long-term investors, that means being heavily weighted toward stocks while young, gradually adding bonds as retirement approaches, and maintaining balanced exposure throughout retirement.
Your Action Plan
- 1. Calculate your investment timeline - when will you need this money?
- 2. Use the 110 or 120 minus age rule as your starting point for stock allocation
- 3. Adjust based on risk tolerance - add bonds if volatility causes anxiety
- 4. Open accounts at a broker offering both stock and bond funds (Fidelity, Schwab, or Vanguard)
- 5. Invest in index funds like VOO or VTI for stocks, BND or AGG for bonds
- 6. Set up automatic monthly investments to stay consistent
- 7. Rebalance once per year to maintain your target allocation
- 8. Never panic-sell during market crashes - this is when you should be buying more
- 9. Gradually increase bond allocation as you age and approach retirement
- 10. Review your allocation every 2-3 years and adjust as your life situation changes
Continue Learning About Investing
Investment Disclaimer
This article provides general educational information about stocks and bonds for informational purposes only. It should not be considered personalized financial, investment, or tax advice. Historical performance data does not guarantee future results. All investments carry risk of loss, including loss of principal. The stock and bond return figures cited represent historical averages and do not guarantee future performance. Market conditions, interest rates, inflation, and economic factors can significantly impact investment returns. Your individual circumstances, financial goals, risk tolerance, and timeline are unique. Before making investment decisions, consider consulting with a qualified financial advisor, tax professional, or investment advisor who can provide advice tailored to your specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future results. We make no guarantees about investment outcomes from following the information presented in this article.