Who Came Up with the 60/40 Rule? Discover the Origins and Purpose

The 60/40 Rule: What is It?

Honestly, the first time I heard about the 60/40 rule, I thought it was some sort of budgeting strategy. Turns out, it's actually a well-known investment principle that has been used for decades. The basic idea is that you should allocate 60% of your portfolio to stocks and 40% to bonds. Seems simple enough, right? But where did this rule come from, and why has it remained so popular for so long?

Well, the truth is that the 60/40 rule isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. It's more of a guideline that can help balance risk and reward for investors who are looking for a relatively safe yet profitable strategy. But who exactly is responsible for this now widely used investment strategy?

The Origins of the 60/40 Rule

The Role of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)

If you’re into investing or finance, you’ve probably heard of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). This concept was developed in the 1950s by economist Harry Markowitz. MPT suggests that a diversified portfolio, composed of different asset classes like stocks, bonds, and other investments, will reduce overall risk and increase returns over the long term. I remember reading about this theory in my finance class and thinking, "This is actually brilliant!"

The 60/40 rule fits perfectly into the framework of MPT because it offers a balance between high-risk, high-reward investments (stocks) and lower-risk, stable investments (bonds). Markowitz’s theory laid the groundwork for many of the modern investing principles, including the 60/40 rule. Essentially, it’s a conservative approach designed to protect your investments while also allowing for growth.

Who Exactly Came Up with the 60/40 Rule?

Well, while Harry Markowitz is often credited with revolutionizing portfolio management, the 60/40 rule itself doesn’t have a single inventor. Instead, it emerged as a practical application of the concepts laid out by Markowitz and other economists in the decades following his work. Various financial advisors and institutions began using this allocation strategy in the 1970s as a way to cater to middle-class investors who wanted moderate growth with limited risk.

The idea became so popular because it struck the right balance between growth potential and safety, and over time, it became the go-to strategy for a diverse range of investors.

Why Has the 60/40 Rule Stayed Popular?

Simplicity and Flexibility

Honestly, one of the things that keeps the 60/40 rule relevant today is its simplicity. You don’t need to be a finance expert to understand it. You just split your portfolio into two main asset classes: 60% stocks and 40% bonds. It’s straightforward and easy to implement. I mean, when I first started investing, this was the strategy I used. It gave me peace of mind because I knew I wasn’t putting all my eggs in one basket.

But it’s also flexible. You can adjust the ratio based on your personal goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon. For example, if you’re younger and willing to take more risks, you might choose a 70/30 or 80/20 allocation. But if you’re getting closer to retirement, a 50/50 or even a 40/60 allocation might suit your needs better.

The Historical Success of the 60/40 Strategy

You might be wondering, “Does the 60/40 rule actually work?” Well, historically, it has. The rule has provided a good balance between risk and reward over the years, offering strong returns without exposing investors to extreme volatility. A friend of mine, who’s been investing for decades, told me that he stuck with the 60/40 rule through several market crashes, and even though it wasn’t the highest performer, it definitely helped him weather the storm and maintain steady growth.

There’s something reassuring about knowing that, even if the stock market takes a dive, your bond holdings will help stabilize the overall portfolio. This resilience is one of the reasons why the 60/40 rule has stood the test of time.

Criticisms and Challenges of the 60/40 Rule

Bonds Aren’t What They Used to Be

Alright, here's the thing. The 60/40 rule isn’t flawless, and there are some critics who argue that it might not be the best approach in today’s economic environment. The biggest criticism I’ve heard is that bonds don’t provide the same returns they used to. With interest rates at historic lows, bonds aren’t yielding much anymore, which makes the 40% portion of the strategy less effective in terms of growth.

In fact, when I talked to an investment advisor last year, they pointed out that, in a low-interest-rate world, the 60/40 rule might need to be adjusted to something like 70/30 in favor of stocks. That’s something to keep in mind if you’re planning for the long term.

The Risk of Overexposure to Stocks

Another issue with the 60/40 rule is the stock market’s volatility. As much as we love the potential for growth, the truth is that stocks can be extremely unpredictable. While the rule helps to buffer some of the downside risk, it doesn’t eliminate it entirely. During market crashes, the stock portion of the portfolio can still take a hit, even if the bond portion is providing some protection.

Conclusion: Is the 60/40 Rule Still Relevant Today?

So, to answer the question, who came up with the 60/40 rule? It’s really a combination of Harry Markowitz’s Modern Portfolio Theory and years of practical application by financial advisors. The rule has stood the test of time because of its simplicity, balance, and historical success.

But like anything in investing, it’s not one-size-fits-all. The 60/40 rule might work for some people, but for others, especially in today’s low-interest-rate environment, it might need a bit of tweaking. If you’re just getting started, it’s a solid base to work with, but don’t be afraid to adjust it based on your personal goals and market conditions. After all, investment strategies should always evolve with time.

Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years

How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.