I said additional risk leads to additional returns over infinite periods. Infinite periods is the equivalent of saying weighted average of possible returns. Because your theory of time diversification fallacy is not based on historical returns (actually its based on historical volatility, which I find funny), and instead on mathematic theory I will go that route. If the pricing of asset classes was perfect, wouldn't the OP be the ideal candidate to have the highest risk allocation? The OP literally says he wants return and understands the risks. The fact that he even mentions his age breaks one of the main assumptions of your time diversification fallacy argument. Time diversification is the accepted, not the minority. You are the minority. Few people have taken the time to refute this time diversification fallacy because it is so well accepted that no one takes the time to refute it. History shits on your argument and backs up mine. Don't get me wrong, I think the going concern bias is a huge thing and I force myself to think about it all the time, but come on man... Don't come in here saying stuff like "well thats dumb" and "that makes no sense" to support a fringe theory that has less evidence than mine does. BTW that chart is trash because it assumes repeated recessions in a row, the options pricing model is trash because it compares two short term options rather than a 1vs a 20 or 30 year option which don't really exist(which is pretty much the business model of an insurance company), the human capital argument is the only one that makes sense which backs up my theory. Oh and I got another great theory, you either got cocky because you owned duration in the last 10 years, so you are talking your book.... or you didn't and had a lot of low duration bonds and lost a bunch of clients because you didn't beat the S&P, in which case you are taking your frustration out on Reddit. I'm done with this argument and i'm angry that I read your stupid fucking white papers.