I've never really subscribed to the approach of investing based on balancing the portfolio. A more relevant risk factor is to determine at what stage the global economy is and the likelihood of a stock market crash in the long or short term future. If you look at all those managed funds like in Kiwisaver, how many of them are factoring this very important risk level? Probably not many and the reason is they're more focused on allocating the cash inflows instead of just sitting aside knowing when the next correct occurs. In another thread i've discussed the importance of low cost index funds and how much investors lose from mgt and administrative fees (re: Buffet's $1M bet against these actively managed funds).

At your age the real deal is you should be asking yourself, "what would you do if over half of your investment portfolio were to lose value in a global market crash?" Conventional thinking tells that those approaching senior age are to lean towards bonds and low risk, low return, investments. That's because at that age, if you timed things wrong, you still have your nest egg. Those that are young and in full work mode can afford to take aggressive risks because a loss at an early age isn't so damaging when they have 20 or 40 years of contributions to make.

Personally, I like to treat investments based on generation. Meaning I don't look to invest based on my age but rather, what my grandchildren can see. So the age of 60+ etc is of moot interest to me.