An argument about the wisdom of the classic 60/40 portfolio is playing out among Wall Street analysts.

The asset allocation is the traditional portfolio for long-term investors. The idea is the portfolio gets an extra return kick from the greater weighting in stocks, while bonds offer some ballast. The portfolio performed well over the past several decades. But not last year, when both stock and bond values plummeted. The "death of the 60/40 portfolio" theme gained currency after the Great Recession, and it has become a major point of contention this year.

The debate is fascinating, but for most retirement savers a sideshow (with one exception that I'll get to). First of all, the 60/40 asset allocation remains a reasonable starting place considering the uncertainties enveloping the markets. But so are other allocations. You have to start somewhere. Jack Bogle, the legendary founder of Vanguard, once remarked that 50/50 was his preferred allocation. "I'm about 50 percent stocks and 50 percent bonds, and I spend half my time worrying about why I have so much in stocks and the other half worrying about why I have so little in stocks," said Bogle.

Bogle was in his late 80s at the time. He added that someone younger may lean toward a greater percentage in stocks and an older person might cut down on the amount in stocks. Or not. You have to be comfortable with the risks. Years ago, in an interview with Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, he emphasized how much you invest in equities largely depends on your attitude toward stock market risk. "For my late mother, her level of risk tolerance called for a very small equity share," he told me.

For another, far more important is understanding your capacity to absorb risk. The 60/40 guidepost should be modified by the riskiness of your income. A senior manager at a university, perhaps working with a professional adviser, can afford to invest more of her money in riskier assets. In sharp contrast, the income of contract workers — think freelance writers — is less stable. They might want to invest more conservatively.

My real concern is the recommendation by 60/40 skeptics to boost returns by investing more in alternative investments. These assets are complicated, risky and high-fee — a dangerous combination. There are valid reasons for starting with the traditional 60/40 portfolio and, depending on your circumstances and temperament, modifying it to suit your needs.

Farrell is economics contributor to the Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio and American Public Media's "Marketplace."