Conventional wisdom might say that is too risky, but IMO, realistic stock risk becomes irrelevant once you reach a certain age, assuming you retired around 65 with a comfortable nest egg at that time.
The S&P 500 has doubled twice in the last 10 years, assuming dividends were reinvested. Ditto for a total stock market index. If you were 100% stocks that entire time, and the stock market lost half its value this year, your nest egg would rewind to what it was when you were 70. Back when you were also retired and living comfortably. If that sized nest egg supported you then, it can support you now.
If the 3 worst years in the history of the stock market repeated themselves back to back to back, you would rewind to about age 66 (-39%, -30% and -23%). In reality, the worst 5 year period in the history of the S&P 500 produced annualized losses of 6.6%. So when you are 80, you might have to get by like you were 72 or so if the market matches its worst 5 year period in history.
IMO, the real danger period is right after retirement, when your nest egg has grown just enough to retire. Losing half your portfolio at that point would truly suck. I am planning to retire in 2 years or so, and this is something I thinking about quite a bit.
H