$Procter & Gamble(PG.US)$ $Johnson & Johnson(JNJ.US)$ $Microsoft(MSFT.US)$ $Costco(COST.US)$ To me I think of proctor and gamble more as a way to preserve already attained wealth. To me that would be something like $50 to $100k i didn't want to risk much of and may still be some years from retirement.
If I was within maybe 5 years I'd maybe have even less than the $100k (for example) in something like a PG just to make up for inflation.
Anyways I'm wondering if someone like myself that's in accumulation mode should even have a stock like PG with any sizeable percentage.
I mean if I have 10 to 20 years till retirement, why not something like COST instead? Or heck even MSFT performing poorly should give a better return than Proctor and Gamble.
Even things like JNJ. Are those better suited to preserving already attained wealth?
I realize bonds were in the past, but now they don't yield that much.
Back in John Bogles days bonds could yield up to 10% with relatively low risk.
So I guess my main question is is it better to be mostly in growth type stocks if you have a long runway and not much of a portfolio?
Does holding 5% in Proctor and Gamble (one stock for example) do anything for someone sub 6 figures portfolio?
Or instead of a percentage in PG type stocks, wouldn't the sp500 index make more sense?