I'm not sure. (PDF warning)

Under "Why not 100% stocks?"

> In short, although a strategy that fully invests a retirement portfolio in stocks can be perceived as riskier than most alternatives, is that really the case? Is a strategy that has the lowest probability of failure, provides the same or better downside protection, and higher upside potential really riskier than other strategies simply because a retiree is more uncertain about (how much higher will be) his bequest? If not, then having a retirement portfolio fully invested in stocks is a strategy that should be seriously considered by retirees.