(Image credit: Getty Images)
Is your stock-bond mix driven primarily by your age? If so, it may be worth reconsidering.
Most investors are taught that age determines asset mix. Formulas such as “100 minus your age” (or the newer cousin “120 minus your age”) promise a quick answer to how much you should have in stocks vs bonds. Using 100 minus age, if someone is 55 years old, they should have 45% in stocks and 55% in bonds.
In my experience, individuals of similar age, income and wealth often face very different financial realities and constraints.
Article continues below
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
But age-based rules remain widely repeated advice in personal finance. They appear in retirement calculators and financial literacy courses and are the default investment options inside 401(k)s.
In fact, age-based asset allocation has become the default architecture of retirement investing. By year-end 2024, about $4.0 trillion sat in target-date funds, according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI).
But what if the entire premise that only your birthday should determine your asset allocation is built on flawed logic or partial information?
Cash flow needs
The core premise behind rules such as “100 minus your age” is that youth automatically equals a long time horizon, and older age implies a short one. But that logic can collapse under real-world conditions, especially for taxable accounts.
A 30-year-old saving for a home purchase next year may require a conservative portfolio despite being “young.”
Meanwhile, a financially secure 70-year-old who is debt-free, supported by reliable income and investing primarily for legacy or wealth transfer may rationally hold a far more growth-oriented allocation.
Age alone does not determine investment horizon — cash-flow needs are critically important.
Why account type (taxable vs tax-deferred) matters
Account structure also shapes time horizon and risk capacity. For tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, withdrawals before age 59½ generally trigger a 10% early withdrawal penalty. For many investors, this naturally lengthens the time horizon for those assets.
Under the SECURE 2.0 Act, required minimum distributions (RMDs) begin at age 73 for individuals born between 1951 and 1959 and at age 75 for those born in 1960 or later.
That means a 55-year-old today may not have to begin mandatory withdrawals for nearly two decades, depending on birth year.
Taxable accounts introduce different considerations: Capital gains taxes, ordinary income taxes on interest and short-term gains, liquidity needs for near-term goals, and marginal tax brackets.
In practice, many investors benefit from thinking of each account — tax-deferred and taxable — as having its own time horizon and allocation, rather than using a single age-based rule across everything.
What market history suggests about time
Market history cannot predict the future, but it does offer perspective. Looking at S&P 500 total returns (with dividends reinvested) from 1950 through 2025, the worst rolling-20-year period still produced a positive annualized nominal return of roughly 6% per year, while the strongest 20-year period was significantly higher.
This does not mean long-term equity investing is “safe,” and it does not guarantee similar results going forward. It does highlight an important point: Longer holding periods in diversified equity markets have historically reduced the frequency of negative outcomes.
For investors who do not expect to draw on certain assets for 20 years or more, that history supports considering meaningful equity exposure — regardless of current age, subject to risk tolerance and overall financial situation.
Rethinking time horizons in a longer-life world
Longevity trends make it harder to equate “older age” with “short time horizon.”
According to planning assumptions used by major financial institutions, a 65-year-old woman who is a non-smoker in excellent health has approximately:
- A 73% probability of living to at least age 85
- A 54% probability of reaching age 90
- Nearly a one-in-three chance of reaching age 95
Even the probability of living to 100 — once considered extremely rare — is meaningfully above zero for healthy individuals.
For a healthy 65-year-old man, the probabilities are lower but still substantial, with roughly:
- A 64% probability of living to at least age 85
- Around a 40% chance of reaching age 90
For couples, the planning horizon often needs to be even longer. For a healthy 65-year-old couple, there is roughly:
- A 44% probability that at least one partner will live to age 95
- Around 16% probability that at least one partner will reach age 100
In other words, it is increasingly realistic to plan for an active retirement that lasts 25 to 35 years or more. The critical question is not “How old am I today?” but “How long might my money need to last?”
Age-based rules remain popular because of simplicity. For many savers these strategies can be helpful starting points, particularly for those who might otherwise remain in cash or never rebalance at all.
The key is to understand what age-based strategies are designed to do, and where a more customized approach may make sense.
What the recent research says
Recent academic evidence suggests that “playing it safe” as you age may increase different risks. The study Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice suggests that traditional age-based strategies may unintentionally increase the risk of outliving one’s savings.
The research indicates that prioritizing global diversification over a standard shift into bonds may better support long-term spending and wealth creation.
This higher-growth approach carries significant volatility and must be weighed against an investor’s unique tax situation, concentration risk and emotional tolerance for market downturns.
The often-ignored emotion test
Numbers alone do not determine a suitable allocation. Emotion plays a central role.
On paper, a 60-year-old who does not plan to touch a portfolio for 20 years has a long time horizon. But before making an asset allocation decision, an investor should psychologically prepare themselves for volatility and drawdown because, historically, equity markets have periodically experienced declines exceeding 20%.
In real life, an investment horizon is only meaningful if the investor can stay invested through large market declines.
A sound allocation must pass two tests:
- Financially feasible. It supports projected cash-flow and long-term goals
- Emotionally viable. The investor can live with day-to-day volatility and won’t be tempted to abandon the plan at the worst possible time
For some, that may mean holding more bonds and cash than a purely mathematical model would suggest.
For others, it may mean maintaining higher equity exposure later in life because there is sufficient stable income elsewhere. Successful investing depends as much on behavior as on expected returns.
Seven questions that matter more than your birthday
When considering asset allocation, rather than beginning with age, start with this list of planning questions:
- When will I likely need to draw from this portfolio? Next year? In 10 years? Over 30 years? Or never?
- How much will I need annually, in today’s dollars?
- What other income sources do I have? Social Security, pensions, rental income, business income or part-time work can reduce reliance on portfolio withdrawals.
- How flexible is my spending? Can I adjust if markets are weak, or are my expenses mostly fixed?
- What is the structure and tax status of my accounts?
- What life expectancy assumption for lifestyle expenses should I use?
- What is my realistic emotional tolerance for market declines? How did I react in past downturns?
An honest answer to those questions will produce an asset allocation as unique as a fingerprint — one that no birthday-based formula could fully capture. In a world where retirement can stretch 30 years or more, getting this right has never mattered more.
