What stock/bond allocation should you have at 60?
There's no single "right" stock/bond split at 60 — it's a trade-off between growth and stability. Running thousands of historical market sequences on a retirement portfolio, a higher stock allocation raises the median result but widens the range of outcomes. Here's the honest picture across allocations.
Monte Carlo outcomes by allocation
Ending balance (today's dollars) across 700 historical-market simulations for a retiree drawing a moderate income. The 10th percentile is the "bad luck" case; the 90th is "good luck":
| Allocation | Downside (10th %ile) | Median | Upside (90th %ile) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20% / 80% | -$1,497 | $117,641 | $2,498,191 |
| 40% / 60% | $63,688 | $753,755 | $3,242,669 |
| 60% / 40% | $263,101 | $1,790,077 | $4,136,663 |
| 80% / 20% | $649,753 | $3,257,068 | $6,422,357 |
| 100% / 0% | $866,617 | $5,153,750 | $10,011,388 |
How to actually choose
The table shows the trade-off; your allocation should follow from your situation, not a single "best" number:
- Long horizon favors stocks. Over 20–30+ years, inflation is a bigger threat than volatility — too few stocks can quietly fail to keep up. That's why many long retirements still hold 50–70%+ in stocks.
- Sequence risk favors some bonds near retirement. A bond/cash buffer (a "bond tent") lets you avoid selling stocks into an early downturn — the most dangerous moment for a portfolio.
- Match it to your nerves and your floor. If guaranteed income (Social Security, a pension) covers your essentials, you can hold more stocks with the rest. If the portfolio must cover everything, more bonds buy stability.
A common age-based rule of thumb is "110 minus your age in stocks," but it's only a starting point. These figures assume a retiree with modest Social Security drawing a moderate income; a rule of thumb can't see your full picture — model yours in the calculator's Simulation Tools.
Why the years right around 60 carry the most risk
The order of your returns matters far more near retirement than it did at forty. A steep loss in the first few years of drawing down — paired with the withdrawals you're taking — can permanently shrink the base your portfolio compounds from, even if the average return over your whole retirement turns out fine. This is sequence-of-returns risk, and it peaks in the window right around your retirement date.
Same average, different order: a weak first decade with no fresh paycheck to buy the dip does lasting damage that a strong first decade never would.
A practical defense is a cash-and-short-bond bucket holding a year or two of expenses. In a downturn you spend from the bucket instead of selling stocks at depressed prices, then refill it as markets recover. It won't lift your long-run return, but it buys the one thing sequence risk tries to take away — time for the market to come back before you're forced to sell.
Common questions
What is the best stock/bond allocation at 60?
There isn't one "best" — it's a trade-off. In this stress test, more stocks raise the median outcome but widen the range of results. A middle allocation (often 50–70% stocks) balances growth against stability; the right choice depends on your horizon, other income, and risk tolerance.
How much should I have in stocks at 60?
A common rule of thumb is "110 minus your age" in stocks (about 50% at 60), but it's only a starting point. Over a long horizon, holding enough stocks to outpace inflation matters as much as limiting volatility.
Is 100% stocks too risky at 60?
It has the highest expected growth but the widest swings, including deep drawdowns. Whether that's "too risky" depends on your time horizon and whether guaranteed income covers your essential spending — if it does, you can tolerate more stock exposure.