Say one is nearing retirement. Does it makes sense to concentrate your entire financial portfolio to just cpf, insurance, 1-2 bond fund like pimco income fund and mbh plus 1- 2 global equity etc/unit trust in a 75% (cpf/insurance/bond) - 25% (global equity fund) split?
It depends to some extent how big your investment portfolio is (see below), but I'd vote no for a couple reasons. First, I don't see a role for PIMCO's funds at all. (Aren't they relatively high cost funds?) Second, ~25% in stocks when nearing retirement is, in my view, way too "conservative." I'm putting the word conservative in quotation marks because it can actually be
more risky over a retirement timescale to adopt a 75%-25% bonds-stocks portfolio allocation, and to do so that early.
For what it's worth Vanguard's target date funds converge to a 70%-30% retirement allocation, and they only get there by circa age 72.
Nearing retirement at 75%-25% is even more "conservative" than Vanguard is — way too conservative, I think. As another example, Schwab's target date funds eventually, slowly get to 72%-28% by circa age 85. (At circa age 65 they're at 56%-44%.)
Of course the higher your net worth relative to your real retirement lifestyle the
more you can prudently allocate in the stocks bucket. If for example your net worth is $10 billion, but you live a retirement lifestyle that could be easily supported by a $10 million portfolio, you're perfectly fine with a 10%-90% bonds-stocks allocation (for example).