Should my stock allocation go up or down in retirement?

There's genuine disagreement among researchers and planners. The traditional approach lowers stock exposure steadily with age. A newer body of research suggests entering retirement somewhat more conservative, then gradually raising stock exposure over the first 10 to 15 years, which in some historical simulations reduced the risk of running out of money. Neither is universally correct.

Is there one right glide path?

No. Both the traditional declining-equity approach and the rising-equity alternative have research behind them and reasonable people land on different sides. The right choice depends on how much flexibility you have in spending, how long you expect retirement to last, and how you'd react to a bad early stretch.

Learn · Glide Path

Your Portfolio Doesn't Have to Get Safer in a Straight Line

Q: What is a decumulation glide path?

How your stock-to-bond mix changes as you move through retirement and withdraw from your portfolio, as opposed to the accumulation glide path used while you're still saving and adding money.

Q: What is a rising equity glide path?

An approach where stock allocation starts lower at the beginning of retirement, to reduce damage from a downturn in the highest-risk early years, then increases gradually afterward, since a portfolio that has survived its first decade of withdrawals faces less sequence risk going forward.

The textbook answer says keep shifting to bonds as you age. A newer, genuinely contested body of research says the opposite might work better, at least for a while.

By Retire BFF Editorial Team Updated October 2026

The Honest Disagreement

"Age in bonds" has been conventional wisdom for decades: hold a bond percentage roughly equal to your age, so a 65-year-old holds about 65% bonds, climbing every year after. It's simple and it's not wrong, exactly. But a body of research most associated with Michael Kitces and Wade Pfau found something uncomfortable in historical simulations: entering retirement more conservative than usual, then gradually raising stock exposure over the following 10 to 15 years, sometimes produced a lower chance of running out of money than holding a flat allocation or steadily reducing stocks the whole way through.

Neither camp is wrong. They're optimizing for slightly different things, and reasonable planners land on both sides.

Why the Traditional Glide Path Makes Sense

The logic is straightforward. You have less time to recover from a loss the older you get, so hold less of what can lose value. It's intuitive, it's been taught for generations, and it genuinely does reduce portfolio volatility in the years when a big loss would be hardest to absorb.

Where it runs into trouble is the exact years that matter most: the first decade of retirement, which is also when sequence-of-returns risk, covered in the safe withdrawal rate guide, does the most damage. A portfolio that's already heavily in bonds going into retirement has less growth engine left to recover from a bad early stretch, and less room to benefit if the next 20 years turn out to be a good market.

The Rising Equity Alternative, Side by Side

Age	Traditional (declining)	Rising equity glide path
65 (retirement starts)	60% stocks	40% stocks
70	55% stocks	50% stocks
75	50% stocks	60% stocks
80	45% stocks	65% stocks

Notice what's actually happening. The rising-equity approach starts more conservative than the traditional one, which cushions the single riskiest stretch, the first few years of withdrawals. Then it does something that feels backwards: it adds risk back as you get older, on the theory that a portfolio that's already survived a decade of withdrawals without a crisis has less sequence risk left to worry about, and more years of growth still ahead of it to capture.

Quick Fact The research behind rising equity glide paths uses historical U.S. return simulations. It's a real, published finding, not a theory. It's also not a guarantee the same pattern holds in every future market environment, which is exactly why it stays contested rather than settled.

What Actually Decides Which One Fits

Spending flexibility matters more than people expect. A retiree who can tighten their budget in a bad year has more room to tolerate either approach. One who's spending close to the edge of their retirement number has less margin for a wrong guess in either direction.

How long retirement needs to last matters too. A 50-year-old retiree has more years for a rising-equity approach to pay off. A 75-year-old starting retirement later has less runway for it to matter either way.

Our honest read: the bucket strategy and a rising equity glide path aren't competing ideas. A bucket structure that starts with more cash and bonds up front, and lets the stock bucket's share of the total grow as the early years pass without disaster, is one practical way to implement a rising-equity approach without needing to rebalance a single blended number every year.

Glide Path FAQ

What is a decumulation glide path?

How your stock-to-bond mix changes as you withdraw through retirement, as opposed to the accumulation glide path used while you're still saving.

Should my allocation go up or down in retirement?

Genuinely disputed. The traditional approach lowers stocks steadily with age. Newer research suggests starting more conservative, then raising stock exposure over the first 10 to 15 years, which reduced failure rates in some historical simulations. Neither is universally correct.

What is a rising equity glide path?

Starting retirement with lower stock exposure to cushion the riskiest early years, then gradually raising it afterward, since a portfolio that's survived its first decade faces less sequence risk going forward.

Is there one right answer?

No. Both approaches have research behind them. What fits depends on your spending flexibility, how long retirement needs to last, and how you'd handle a rough early stretch.

Educational purposes only. This guide describes general asset allocation research and is not personalized investment advice. Historical simulations do not guarantee future results, and all investing involves risk of loss. Retire BFF is not a registered investment advisor.