The comments on a recent post questioned whether life cycle investing is a good idea. I think the idea is sound, but I think it is important to point out that thinking purely in terms of terminal wealth at retirement over-simplifies things.

To be fair, the better (and, I believe, the original) expositions of life-cycle investing to take this into account. However, I have come across a few discussions seem to not consider the scope for long term gains made after retirement.

With modern life expectancies, people can expect to live for many years after retirement. Someone retiring at 65 has a life expectancy of another 20 years, and could well live significantly longer: reaching 100 is no longer that unusual.

So, someone of retirement age does both need to invest for short term security and for long term growth. Over a twenty or thirty year horizon the case for investing in equities rather fixed income becomes very strong.

This is a topic I am new to so any thought or references that might help me get a better grip on the subject are very welcome.