Skip to main content
Sequence-of-Returns Risk

Why retirees increase equity exposure over time

Pomegra Learn

Why should retirees increase equity allocation as they age?

Most investors have heard the old rule: shift from stocks to bonds as you get older. But in retirement, the opposite strategy often makes more sense. The rising equity glide path flips this conventional wisdom by gradually increasing stock exposure as you progress through retirement—a counterintuitive move that acknowledges the true nature of sequence risk and the power of a long time horizon, even at 65 or 75.

Quick definition: A rising equity glide path is a retirement portfolio strategy where the equity allocation gradually increases over time, with the steepest bond allocation early in retirement when sequence risk peaks, then progressively shifting back toward equities as you move deeper into retirement.

Key takeaways​

  • Traditional "reduce stocks at retirement" advice ignores that early retirees still have 30+ years of inflation-fighting needs
  • A rising glide path protects against early bear markets while capturing long-term growth when it matters most
  • The strategy works best when paired with a bond buffer covering 2–5 years of living expenses
  • Sequence risk concentrates in the first 5–10 years of retirement; beyond that, time horizon reverts to "very long"
  • The approach requires discipline to rebalance against emotion and discipline to actually follow the plan

The bond tent: protection where risk peaks​

The sequence problem hits hardest in years 1–10 of retirement. A retiree who retires into a bear market and starts withdrawing 4–5% annually can deplete the portfolio 30–40% faster than expected. That's where bonds become crucial.

A traditional bond tent structure might look like this: hold 5–7 years of spending needs in bonds and short-term assets at retirement age, keep equities in the remaining portfolio, and rebalance gradually. If you need $60,000 per year, that's $300,000–$420,000 in bonds and cash—a large allocation for a younger retiree, but one that serves a real purpose: it lets you skip equity sales during crash years.

By age 75 or 80, if the portfolio has grown or remained stable, the math changes. You no longer need that entire bond tent. You've weathered the sequence risk peak. Your remaining lifetime, while shorter, is still long enough to benefit from equity returns. Your bond position shrinks to 2–3 years of expenses, and equities climb back up to 60–70% or higher.

The early-retirement time horizon paradox​

Here's the counterintuitive insight: a 65-year-old retiree likely has 25–35 years ahead. That's longer than a 40-year-old still working, yet conventional portfolio advice treats the retiree as if time is running out. Why?

The difference is volatility tolerance. A 40-year-old earns a salary and can buy stocks on dips. A 65-year-old withdraws from the portfolio and struggles to buy dips when equities crash—in fact, they do the opposite, selling equities at the worst time. That's the sequence trap.

Once the portfolio stabilizes or grows, though, that time-horizon logic returns. By 75, if you still have <$1.5 million in assets and you're withdrawing <$80,000/year, inflation will erode your purchasing power far more than market crashes will. Real returns matter. Equities deliver real returns over 15–25 year stretches; bonds do not.

The rising glide path says: pay for sequence safety early (hold bonds), then spend your later years capturing the equity premium because you've already survived the dangerous window.

Building the rising glide path in practice​

A simple rising glide path for a mid-six-figure retirement portfolio might look like this:

Years 1–5 (age 65–70): 35% equities, 65% bonds and cash. The bond allocation covers 4–5 years of spending. If the market crashes 30%, equities drop in value, but you're not forced to sell them—you pull from bonds. This is the true insurance value of the bond tent.

Years 6–10 (age 70–75): 50% equities, 50% bonds. By now, either you've enjoyed gains (and rebalance bonds higher from stock appreciation), or you've lived through one or more downturns without portfolio collapse. Either way, the bond tent shrinks because you've covered early sequence risk.

Years 11+ (age 75+): 65–75% equities, 25–35% bonds. You've entered the phase where inflation risk dominates. The portfolio is smaller (you've withdrawn from it), but you still have 15–25 years ahead. Equities are the right inflation hedge.

Each rebalancing step happens on a schedule—annually or every 2–3 years—not in response to market swings. Discipline beats emotion.

When the bond tent shrinks​

The rising glide path assumes your portfolio can weather the bond-tent phase and emerge intact. If you experience a severe early crash (e.g., 2008–2009 replay), the timetable might adjust. The portfolio shrinks, and the target equity allocation might need to stay lower longer. But even then, the principle holds: once you've passed the sequence peak, holding 50–60%+ equities for 15+ years is rational.

The bond tent also shrinks if you have other retirement income—Social Security, pension, part-time work. If 80% of your spending comes from guaranteed sources, the portfolio can take far more risk early on, and the glide path accelerates upward.

Real-world examples​

The 1973 retiree: A retiree who left the workforce in early 1973 faced immediate stagflation and an 18-month bear market. A 70/30 equity/bond portfolio fell hard. But by 1975, as equities recovered, a 40/60 rising-glide-path portfolio (lower equities early, rising back up) would have allowed this retiree to skip forced equity sales and capture the strong 1976–1979 recovery. By age 80 (1993), those equities would have delivered 400%+ real gains.

The 2007 retiree: A retiree at peak market age in 2007 faced the worst sequence outcome in 50 years. A 40/60 bond-tent portfolio meant bond income covered spending while equities fell 57%. By 2010, as equities rebounded, a rising glide path would have shifted to 50/50, then 60/40 by 2015. The sequence risk of 2008–2009 was survived; the later long bull market rewarded the equity exposure.

Common mistakes​

Confusing glide path with market timing. The rising glide path is a rules-based schedule, not a market-call. You increase equity allocation on a timetable (age-based, years-in-retirement based), regardless of whether the market is up or down. This removes emotion and avoids the trap of staying too conservative when equities have crashed.

Ignoring the bond-tent math. A rising glide path only works if the bond tent is truly sufficient for 4–5 years of spending. If it covers only 2 years and a crash happens in year 3, you're forced to sell equities anyway. Stress-test the bond allocation against a -40% equity decline before retiring.

Not rebalancing. The glide path is a target, not a set-and-forget plan. If equities surge, your allocation drifts above target (e.g., 65% instead of 60%). Rebalance by redirecting new cash flow to bonds, or by selling equities to fund distributions. This forces you to sell high and buy low—the opposite of emotional trading.

Assuming the portfolio will grow. The rising glide path works well if the portfolio stays flat or grows. If you're withdrawing a high percentage (6%+) and markets underperform, the portfolio shrinks, and the bond tent becomes a larger portion of the total. You may not be able to raise equities as planned. Model your specific withdrawal rate and expected return to see how the glide path adjusts.

Staying too conservative too long. Some retirees reach age 80, see a 50/50 bond/equity portfolio, and freeze. "Bonds are safe," they think. But 25 years of 2–3% real returns from bonds, net of inflation and taxes, is a slow erosion of purchasing power. If you truly have 15+ year horizon and your bonds cover essential spending, the rising glide path argues for more equities than you feel comfortable with—and that discomfort is often a sign you need to trust the math, not your fear.

FAQ​

At what age should I start raising my equity allocation?​

Most rising-glide-path models use a 5-year initial bond tent, so age 70 is a common inflection point. But it depends on your crash experience. If you retired in 2020, you haven't weathered a major crash yet; delay the shift upward. If you retired in 2010 and survived the 2008 aftermath, moving to 50/50 by age 75 is reasonable.

What if I need more than 5 years' spending in bonds because I'm anxious?​

Holding 6–7 years of spending in bonds is fine—it just delays the rise in equities. You might stay at 35% equities until age 75, then shift to 55% by 80. The key principle remains: sequence risk is worst early; time horizon is long; recapture equities later.

Does the rising glide path work with a pension?​

Yes—it works better. If a pension covers 70% of your spending, your portfolio needs to earn real returns on the remaining 30%. That's a lower withdrawal rate, a shrinking effective portfolio relative to spending, and an even stronger case for equities early in retirement.

How do I rebalance if I'm living off withdrawals?​

Use your withdrawals as the rebalancing vehicle. If your target is 50/50 and equities have run up to 60%, use your withdrawal to take money from the equity sleeve until it drops to 50%. If equities lag to 40%, redirect contributions or planned withdrawals to equities.

What if there's a bear market when I'm supposed to raise my equity allocation?​

Proceed with the plan. Markets in their seventh or eighth year of bull runs are not guaranteed to go up, but a market crash is an excellent time to rebalance into equities (buy low). If you've stayed disciplined on the rising glide path, a crash during your "shift to 60% equities" means you buy equities cheaply. This is the strategy working as designed.

Can I combine a rising glide path with annuities?​

Absolutely. An annuity for essential spending (food, housing, utilities) frees the portfolio to take risk. With guaranteed income, your bond tent can shrink, and you can accelerate the rise in equity allocation. By age 75, if annuities cover 80% of spending, your portfolio might be 80% equities.

How much should my portfolio growth rate be to make this work?​

The rising glide path assumes 4–6% nominal returns long-term (60/40 or 70/30 portfolio in a mid-market-return environment). If you're withdrawing 4–5% annually, a 5% portfolio return means modest net growth. Model your specific numbers, but don't wait for market perfection—the strategy's value is in surviving sequence risk early and capturing growth later, even in moderate return environments.

Summary​

The rising equity glide path turns sequence risk from a career-long threat into a time-bound early-retirement challenge. By holding a bond tent in years 1–10 and progressively raising equity allocation in years 11–30, retirees can skip forced selling during crashes and recapture inflation-fighting growth when time horizon is still measured in decades. The approach requires discipline and accurate calculation of the bond tent, but it acknowledges the simple truth: a 75-year-old with 20 years ahead still needs growth, and equities are the proven long-term vehicle.

Next​

→ Cash buffer and bucket strategy for early retirement