The S&P 500 has nearly quadrupled over the past decade. For millions of do-it-yourself retirement savers, that run has quietly turned a balanced portfolio into an equity-heavy bet most of them never consciously made.

A new wave of financial guidance is urging retirement savers to rebalance away from stocks and toward bonds and cash. But the advice largely ignores the asset class that has outperformed both during periods of fiscal stress and currency erosion: gold. For metals-focused investors, the rebalancing conversation is incomplete without it.

A USA TODAY report published May 16 laid out the case plainly. Advisers from Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, and Morningstar all told the same story: years of stock gains have pushed many retirement accounts far past their intended risk levels. For savers who haven’t touched their allocations, what started as a 70/30 stock-bond split may now look like 85/15 or worse.

The Drift No One Notices

The mechanism is simple. When stocks rise faster than bonds or cash, equities consume a larger share of the portfolio. Over a decade in which the S&P 500 nearly quadrupled, that drift has been enormous. And because most 401(k) participants set their allocations once and forget them, the result is a generation of savers sitting on far more equity risk than they intended.

Related Posts
Ultra-rich investors cut stocks and build cash reserves

Hannah Quinton, a Charles Schwab branch manager in San Mateo, California, framed it in practical terms:

“Let’s say for the sake of argument it’s a 70-30 mix. Now, all of a sudden, the market has shot up, and it’s out of whack.”

Christine Benz, Morningstar’s director of personal finance and retirement planning, put it more bluntly. She said she has “sensed a lot of emphasis on equities in investors’ portfolios.” Part of the reason, she acknowledged, is that bonds have disappointed. A benchmark Bloomberg bond index plunged 18% between August 2020 and October 2022. That kind of pain makes investors reluctant to own fixed income at all.

“Part of it is, let’s face it, bonds have not made a great case for themselves over the last two decades,” Benz said.

She’s right. And that admission opens a door the mainstream rebalancing conversation rarely walks through.

What the Standard Advice Leaves Out

The conventional playbook says: sell stocks, buy bonds, add cash. Schwab’s own sample allocations tell savers who are ten years from retirement to hold 60% stocks, 35% bonds, and 5% cash. At three to five years out, the mix flips to 50% bonds, 20% stocks, and 30% cash. For aggressive investors more than fifteen years away, Schwab suggests 95% stocks and 5% cash.

Notice what’s missing. There is no allocation to gold. No allocation to silver. No mention of hard assets as a distinct category. The entire framework treats the investment universe as a three-ingredient recipe: stocks, bonds, and cash.

For readers of this publication, that omission is the story. When Benz says bonds haven’t made a strong case for two decades, she’s describing a period in which gold has done precisely what bonds were supposed to do: preserve purchasing power, hedge against fiscal excess, and provide ballast during equity drawdowns. The fact that the advisory establishment still treats precious metals as exotic tells you more about institutional inertia than about portfolio math.

As we’ve explored before, inflation quietly erodes retirement balances that look large on paper. A portfolio that drifted into 85% equities may have a big nominal number attached to it. But if the next drawdown arrives before the saver rebalances, the damage compounds in ways that a bond allocation alone may not repair.

The Volatility Problem Is Real

Sabino Vargas, a senior financial adviser at Vanguard, was direct about the risk concentrated equity exposure creates.

“A 100% stock portfolio, it’s going to be very volatile. We don’t know when a stock market correction or even a recession might take place.”

The historical record backs him up. During the Great Recession of 2008, the Dow Jones lost more than half its value. It didn’t fully recover until 2013. A retiree who entered that period with an equity-heavy portfolio and needed to draw income faced a brutal sequence-of-returns problem: selling shares at depressed prices to cover living expenses, locking in losses that the eventual recovery couldn’t fully repair.

That fear is not abstract. Running out of money now frightens Americans more than death itself, and for good reason. A 50% drawdown in a retirement account five years before you stop working is not the same as a 50% drawdown when you’re thirty-five. Time is the variable that separates a recoverable loss from a permanent one.

Benz acknowledged the complacency that long bull markets breed. “It has been a while since we had a market shock that scared us,” she said. That sentence should land hard for anyone who remembers how quickly calm markets can turn disorderly.

How Rebalancing Actually Works

The mechanics are straightforward, even if the discipline is not. Rebalancing means adjusting the mix of assets in a portfolio to bring it back in line with the investor’s goals. You can do it by selling winners and buying laggards, by directing new contributions into underweight categories, or by changing 401(k) allocation settings for future deposits.

One common rule of thumb: rebalance when any single component drifts five percentage points from its target. If your goal is 75% stocks and your portfolio has crept to 80%, it’s time to trim. Vargas suggested reviewing on a fixed schedule. “You could look at it every 90 days, every 6 months, once a year,” he said. “You want to learn a schedule that you can stick to.”

Heather Knight, a vice president at Fidelity Investments, framed the broader goal simply: “All of this is just making sure that you have a lot of eggs in different baskets.” She also pushed back against rigid formulas. “We always think of 60-40, but the reality is, that doesn’t match everybody’s goals.”

That’s a useful admission. The 60/40 portfolio has been treated as gospel for decades. But if bonds can lose 18% in two years while stocks quadruple in ten, the traditional two-asset framework may itself be the problem. A third pillar, one that responds to different forces than either equities or fixed income, deserves a seat at the table.

Benz noted that all-in-one funds handle rebalancing automatically. “If you own any sort of all-in-one fund, it’s automatic rebalancing. And that’s an incredibly powerful thing.” True enough. But automatic rebalancing only works within the asset classes the fund holds. If the fund excludes gold, the rebalancing is automatic but incomplete.

Where Gold Fits in the Conversation

The standard advisory framework treats diversification as a question of stocks versus bonds versus cash. Gold, silver, and other hard assets rarely appear in the 401(k) menu. That’s partly structural. Most employer-sponsored plans offer a limited set of target-date funds, index funds, and bond funds. Precious metals exposure, when it’s available at all, usually comes through a mining-company fund or a commodities sleeve that most participants never select.

But the logic of rebalancing applies to metals investors too. If your portfolio has drifted heavily toward equities, the risk isn’t just that stocks might fall. The risk is that the asset you’re overweight in may be the one most vulnerable to the specific threats ahead: credit stress, fiscal deterioration, currency erosion, or a policy mistake by the Fed. Gold has historically performed well in exactly those environments.

For savers who manage their own IRAs or have brokerage windows inside their 401(k) plans, the rebalancing question is broader than Schwab’s sample allocations suggest. It’s not just “how much in stocks versus bonds.” It’s “what am I actually diversified against?”

Quinton described rebalancing as an action “based on a set of circumstances. It could be scaling back risk or increasing risk, based on the situation.” That framing is correct. And the circumstances facing retirement savers today include fiscal deficits, a national debt that shows no sign of contracting, and a bond market that even the industry’s own experts admit has been a disappointment for twenty years.

As we’ve covered in our look at what retirement actually costs state by state, the savings gap for most Americans is already severe. A concentrated equity portfolio that suffers a major drawdown at the wrong moment doesn’t just set you back. It can change what retirement looks like entirely.

The Deeper Problem With the Two-Asset World

The rebalancing advice from Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, and Morningstar is sound as far as it goes. Concentrated equity risk is real. Portfolio drift is real. The behavioral tendency to let winners ride until they become a liability is well documented.

But the conversation stops one step short. It assumes the only counterweight to stocks is bonds. And bonds, as Benz herself conceded, have been a weak counterweight for two decades. The 18% decline in the Bloomberg bond index from 2020 to 2022 wasn’t a one-off. It was the logical result of a rate environment that punished fixed-income holders after years of artificially suppressed yields.

Gold doesn’t carry credit risk. It doesn’t depend on a government’s ability to service its debt. It doesn’t lose value when the central bank raises rates to fight the inflation its own policies helped create. Those aren’t ideological claims. They’re structural features of the asset.

The fact that mainstream rebalancing guidance still treats the portfolio as a binary stocks-or-bonds decision is itself a signal. It tells you that the advisory industry’s mental model hasn’t caught up with the monetary reality its own clients are living through. The lesson from the difficulty of timing markets applies here too: if you can’t predict the next drawdown, you’d better own something that doesn’t need you to.

Rebalancing is the right instinct. The question is whether you’re rebalancing into the right assets or just rearranging the same two chairs on the same deck.