Say that you are a poor saver and only have a few thousands set aside and retirement age is fast approaching, by your rationale it would make sense to go to vegas and put it all on Red… the fact that you need a better return does not necessarily mean that you should take a higher risk, as illustrated in my example above. Your asset allocation should be based on two parameters and two parameters only: (i) your tolerance for risk; (ii) your investment horizon.

Suze Orman may be less tolerant for risk than most, and in that case investing the bulk of her assets in bonds may be right for her. However, it has nothing to do with how much money she has. The fact that you need a higher return, does not mean that you should accept more risk. It may be an indication that your plans are not very realistic and that you should scale them back… am I making any sense?