FYI: (This is a follow-up to davidmoran's link of the original New York Times article.)
The New York Times is out with an investing column that posits the following: You should be 100% stocks in your portfolio because, given enough time, they should outperform everything else you can possibly own in an investment account.
And here is the data that “proves” it – as long as you’re willing to bet that the future will look precisely like the past:
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2016/02/13/should-you-be-100-long-stocks/Josh links the New York Times article at the bottom of his piece
