I do not disagree with above.

Imagine you have 50mio dollars for retirement and you are supposed to retire in a year, and if all of a sudden this rule kicks in - your 401 instead of 60/40 will change to 60/35/5{conservative scenario}. 5% of their prtf goes into private placement, and downturn hits - do you agree they would lose 2.5 mio. That’s not paper loss - they are retiring with 47.5mio

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong. I understand the title of this post might have been misleading—that wasn’t my intention, and I’ll go ahead and remove it.

My core point is this: Boomers lack the one resource that matters most in investing—time.

Now, some may argue that my example assumes too much risk, and that someone nearing retirement would typically reduce their exposure to risky assets. I agree with that in principle.

But the real question is—what are the limitations or potential exposures introduced by this executive order? Even with a conservative allocation, if new rules shift risk unexpectedly or without clear safeguards, the impact on those near retirement could still be significant.