I previously held a mix of NS&I Income Bonds and US Treasury Bonds, some other USD corporates, unhedged , I chose to convert these bonds to NS&I Income Bonds. This provided gains in early April.
The NS&I element is 18% of the portfolio plus an additional 5% is a directly held property on a lease with 5 year’s remaining. The remainder is the equity portfolio as described.
The property rent was paid for the last quarter and I have reasonable hopes that the rent will be paid in the future.
Thus the equity is 77% of the portfolio, so broadly similar (ish) to a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80.
The NS&I Income Bonds would fund 12 years income at a comfortable level, without any dividends from the equity portfolio. This seems a reasonable margin of safety.
If I followed the age in bonds, I would be in Vanguard LifeStrategy 40, but that would rather lack ambition ! ( It would work perfectly well, probably enough to live our lives out on the bonds portfolio) the equity would be a bonus / inflation protection.
We are fortunate that portfolio growth after 13 years in early retirement, to be effectively over funded! Such that any Vanguard LifeStrategy style portfolio from 20 to 100 would work going forward. Clearly we have been lucky that the last 13 years have been good despite a poor start to the period in 2007-2009. It could easily have gone the other way, it’s important to realise that the right outcome, does not mean the initial decision to run a portfolio that was 90%+ equity was correct
My view going forward is that 75% to 80% equity is right for me, rationally I can a strong argument for 65/70% equity portfolio but I prefer higher risk, mainly because my drawdown rate for a comfortable life is only around 1.5%, prior to Covid we traveled extensively and spent more, it will be some time before that resumes...
There is a paradox in that those who need the most growth and return will tend to have the smaller portfolio and probably can least afford the risk of a high equity %...
I don’t think there is a correct level of bonds, but a range that could work, refined by the individuals capacity to take risk and their ability to mentally tolerate risk.