Do I really need more more than 25% Bonds in my portfolio?

Hi! I'm 52F, and planning to retire in 3 years or so, hoping I can take advantage of rule of 55 if needed. I am starting my glide path to retirement and starting to actively rebalance and fix my portfolio allocation to prepare for retirement. My current allocation mix is 66/18/16, so I'm slowly starting to reduce my equities and move them to bonds Build a 5 year bridge fund split between (SPAXX/SGOV, SHY, VCSH, TIP, BND) to cover me from age 55 - 60. This is about 25% of my portfolio Split my 75 equities into: 53 US/22 International My research says I have other assets that serves the same purpose as bonds in my portfolio so I don't have to have more than 25% and can even go lower I have $5000/month Social Security that I'm deferring until I'm 70 to maximize I have $1000/month pension starting at 65 We have rental generating commercial real estate that I'm not even counting in my NW and retirement because they're my husband's and not liquid so I don't want to count on them Given all the above, do I really need MORE than 25% of my portfolio moving into bonds and fixed income? At my age, every book says I should be 60/40 or 50/50 at retirement, but that seems TOO conservative, and seems I will miss growth opportunities. I'm doing a lot of my rebalancing on the 401K (72%), ROTH and HSA (3%) accounts so I don't trigger taxable events. What I ask myself: If the market goes down 40-50% tomorrow, do I have enough to weather the market, and not be forced to sell stocks? And with a 5 year bridge plan, I feel like I do. What do the Bogleheads think? Am I crazy and too aggressive at my age? Edited to add: The 25% is split below. Emergency fund (about 6-9 months) in SPAXX/FDLXX Remaining Yr 1&2 of expenses in SGOV Yr 3&4 of expenses in SHY Yr 5 of expenses in VCSH / Stable Fund Anything extra in TIPS and BND to round out the 25% submitted by /u/agentscullyfox [link] [comments]