Is this true? Is this allocation better?
I'm not sure where Beltim got the volatility number for the GB portfolio without gold. By my calculations (since 1972) it's a 7.5% standard deviation with gold and 10% without. Perhaps he was also looking at other assets or a different data set. In any case, even without gold I think that's a nice portfolio that I would have no problem with. But "better" is up to the individual. Everybody is different.
I just want to know what has the LOWEST volatility but the highest returns so during the withdraw phase I can sleep at night. ... You guys have a lot more knowledge and passion in this area. Tell us newbies what to do so we can focus on learning the next 20 fad acronyms in tech this month so we can keep these high paying jobs.
I totally feel for your job frustration. However, please understand that nobody here can tell you how you should invest your own life savings. One thing I've learned over the years that
there's no such thing as a single perfect portfolio that works best for everyone. The best any of us can do is to offer all the information we can so that you can make a wise decision for yourself.
Explore various investing options from a variety of sources here and elsewhere. Find a few that appeal to you and read the supporting books and articles in full. Perhaps even alter them a little based on your own needs and preferences with an eye towards building something you're personally comfortable holding on to for a very long time. But definitely don't be hasty or rely on quick easy answers. You deserve better!
And most importantly, always remember that you don't
have to get the absolute highest risk-adjusted returns to be very successful financially. Find something "good enough" that you're comfortable with, and redirect that optimization energy towards bulking up your MMM muscles on the expense side. You'll probably be a lot happier and more secure in the long run.