Case: three model portfolios and the onboarding questions

"Careful" doesn't mean the smallest possible fall. It means the least total risk for the goal, and a long goal has two risks: falling in a bad stretch and growing too little to get there.

In the Tessaro table the all-bond 0/100 had the smallest fall, −22.8%, but it peaked in year 34, lost value through the inflation years and was still below that peak at the end of year 40. Its real return was 1.7% a year: $1,000 became $1,932. A 40/60 fell somewhat more, −27.6%, was back above its peak 6 years after it, and turned $1,000 into $4,110.

So a careful portfolio for goals five or more years away usually holds some stocks. Money needed within a year or two shouldn't be in an investment portfolio at all; it belongs in cash, deposits or very short bonds.

Moving from one mix to the next doesn't change risk evenly. In the Tessaro table each step of 20 points in stocks adds about 0.7–0.9 points of real return a year, but the falls grow faster at the top: −30.0% for 60/40, −38.0% for 80/20 and −48.2% for 100/0, with 6, 8 and 11 years under water.

The last step, from 80/20 to 100/0, added $2,237 per $1,000 over forty years in real terms. To collect it, a user had to watch half of the money disappear and wait 11 years to be back. Someone who sold at the bottom of that fall would have done far worse than an 80/20 held calmly.

That is why a growth portfolio is often set a little below 100% stocks, and all-stocks is offered as a choice the user makes knowingly, not a default.

Onboarding has to be short, so every question must earn its place. Three can cover both limits:

• Horizon: when will the money be needed? Under about two years, the money shouldn't go into an investment portfolio at all. Longer horizons allow more stocks.
• Income and cushion: is the income steady, and are there savings for several months? Irregular income or no cushion lowers capacity by a step, because a bad month could force a sale.
• Reaction: "If your $10,000 showed $7,000, what would you do: sell, wait, or add more?" Concrete money works better than "how risky are you?"

Score capacity from the first two and tolerance from the third, then use the lower one. Show the user why: "Your horizon allows Growth, but you said you'd sell at −30%, so we suggest Balanced. You can change it."

Different mixes get hurt by different events, and an honest card shows the one that hit it hardest.

In the Tessaro table every mix with 60% stocks or less had its worst real year in year 36, when inflation reached 9.1% and stocks and bonds fell together: −17.6% for 40/60 and −20.0% for 60/40. Mixes with more stocks were hurt most by the crash in year 22: −24.3% for 80/20 and −31.8% for 100/0.

This matters for the copy. A Careful card that only says "bonds protect you in a crash" is true about year 22 and silent about year 36, which was its real worst case. A Growth card should name the crash. Users trust a product more when the bad year they live through was already on the screen. So each card names its own event, not a generic "markets can be volatile".

A model-portfolio card is the moment a user agrees to a risk, so it must show that risk as clearly as the reward. Four numbers, the same on every card, make the cards comparable:

• real return a year in the data, marked as history, never as a forecast;
• worst real year;
• largest fall from a peak;
• years under water until the old peak was regained.

Add a line on how the portfolio is run (bond part, rebalancing rule, where new money goes) and why it was suggested to this user. Leave out words that promise: "best", "safe", "guaranteed", or a single expected percent a year. For Balanced (60/40) the Tessaro data gives: 4.4% a year real, worst year −20.0%, largest fall −30.0%, 6 years under water. The same format lets users compare cards at a glance.