USA TODAY US Edition

Comparing investment­s

Q: Stocks vs. bonds: Which is better for income?

- Matthew Frankel Matthew Frankel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned.

A: There’s no easy answer, simply because both options have advantages and disadvanta­ges.

With bonds, the advantages are predictabl­e income and the fact that you’ll get your principal back. Of course, most bonds aren’t 100% risk-free, but if you buy a high-quality bond for $1,000 with a 4% coupon rate and a five-year maturity, you can reasonably expect to get $40 per year for five years and then have your $1,000 returned to you.

Stocks are not nearly as predictabl­e as bonds in terms of income or eventual value. However, the advantage of stock investing is growth potential. Not only can stocks appreciate in value over time, but many stocks consistent­ly raise their dividends year after year, which can give you a growing income stream. In retirement, being able to grow your money can help offset, or even outpace, the effects of inflation.

One of my favorite income stocks is Procter & Gamble. It yields just over 3% and has increased its dividend for 60 years in a row. Stocks such as this can provide the income you need and also grow your nest egg over time.

The bottom line is that an income-oriented portfolio should contain both stocks and bonds. As a general rule, I suggest subtractin­g your age from 110 to determine your ideal stock allocation percentage, with the rest of your portfolio in bonds.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States