Task 1
The 35-year case generally has more time to recover from short-run losses. Time horizon does not remove risk.
Teacher guide
Defend two asset allocations
Students compare a short and long fictional time horizon, draw two broad stock-and-bond allocations, and defend the risk tradeoff without treating the result as personal advice.
Time
35 minutes
National topic
IV. Investing
Selected outcome
Investing 12-6a
Separate student view
Share or print the student handout
The student page contains the scenario, resource links, prompts, response space, and privacy boundary. It does not contain this teacher key.
Complete teacher packet
Download one printable file with preparation, the fictional scenario, checked resources, all tasks, the teacher key, evidence check, extension, and LMS post. Keep it teacher-only because it contains answers.
Download teacher packetReady-to-paste class post
The post includes the exact handout, time, goal, directions, and privacy boundary.
Objective and outcome
Connect time horizon to capacity for short-run fluctuation and explain an allocation tradeoff.
Investing 12-6a: Recommend different broad asset allocations for shorter and longer term goals. This is an independent selective correlation. Use the standards crosswalk for the source and claim boundary.
Teacher preparation
- Open the allocation glide path and test its keyboard controls before class.
- Share or print the student handout.
- State that the chart uses illustrative volatility inputs and is not a recommendation engine.
Fictional scenario
Case A needs the money in three years. Case B will not use the money for 35 years. Both cases are fictional, have the same starting balance, and compare only broad stock and bond shares.
Checked resources
- Allocation glide path
Students draw and read two broad mixes.
- Asset allocation guide
Students define time horizon and risk capacity.
- Risk and return explorer
Students test why expected return is not a guarantee.
Student task sequence
- Before using the tool, predict which case can usually tolerate more short-run fluctuation and explain why.
- Use the allocation path to create one broad stock-and-bond mix for the three-year case. Record the mix and one risk.
- Create a different mix for the 35-year case. Record the mix and one risk.
- Defend why the two mixes differ without saying that age alone determines the answer.
- Name one fact missing from both fictional cases that a real decision would require.
Teacher key
Task 2
No single percentage is required. Credit depends on a lower fluctuation tolerance and a stated tradeoff for the near-term use.
Task 3
No single percentage is required. Credit depends on connecting the longer horizon to greater capacity for fluctuation while still naming loss risk.
Task 4
A strong defense compares when the money is needed, not only the fictional person's age.
Task 5
Acceptable missing facts include loss tolerance, emergency reserves, other assets, debt, income stability, or the consequence of missing the goal.
Four-point evidence check
Award one point for each visible item.
- Two different stock-and-bond mixes are recorded.
- Each mix has a named downside.
- The defense uses time horizon and does not present a personal recommendation.
- One relevant missing fact is named.
Extension
Keep both end points fixed, change only the bend of the path, and explain how the middle years move.
Browse the other classroom lessons or build a focused set from the teacher toolkit.
This page is educational material, not financial advice. The figures come from the formula shown and assume the inputs you enter hold for the whole term. Your own rate, fees, taxes and timing will differ, so treat the output as arithmetic to check a decision against, not as a recommendation.