How to use this calculator
Enter your age to see the three age-based rules side by side. Add your portfolio value and what you withdraw from it each year to get the part the rules leave out: how many years of spending are sitting somewhere other than the stock market.
Treat the output as a starting point for a conversation, not an instruction. The right answer depends on things no formula knows about you.
Where the rules came from
“100 minus your age” is the original: at 60, hold 40% in stocks. It was written when retirements were shorter and bonds paid considerably more than they have for most of the last twenty years.
“110 minus age” and “120 minus age” are the modern corrections. A 65-year-old today may need the portfolio to last 30 years, and a portfolio that conservative can run out of growth long before the person runs out of life. The gap between the rules is the argument about how much market risk a long retirement requires you to accept.
The glidepath, and what target-date funds actually do
A target-date fund does not follow any of those formulas. It holds a high, flat stock allocation while you are decades away, then tapers along a planned path, and flattens out again around ten years after the target date rather than continuing to fall forever.
The fourth row in the calculator approximates that shape. If you hold a target-date fund, this is roughly what is happening inside it, and it is worth knowing before you add bonds on top of a fund that is already adding them for you.
Sequence risk is the real question
For someone still working, a market fall is an opportunity: contributions buy more shares. For someone drawing an income, the same fall forces selling at the bottom, and those sold shares never recover. That is sequence-of-returns risk, and it is why allocation matters far more in the first years of retirement than at any other time.
The useful question is therefore not “what percentage should I hold in stocks” but “how many years could I fund without selling a share”. Three years or more is generally enough to ride out an ordinary bear market. Much less than that and a bad first few years can do permanent damage.
What the rules cannot see
Age is one input among several, and often not the most important:
- A pension or annuity covering your fixed costs acts like a large bond holding, and usually justifies more stocks elsewhere.
- Having saved far more than you need lowers the return you require, so there is less reason to take risk.
- Having saved less than you need does not justify taking more risk to catch up; it usually means adjusting the plan.
- Your own behaviour counts. An allocation you abandon in a crash is worse than a more conservative one you can hold.
- Where the assets sit matters for tax. Which account holds the bonds changes your bill, not just your risk.
Frequently asked questions
What is the 100 minus age rule?
Subtract your age from 100 and hold that percentage in stocks, with the rest in bonds. At 60 it gives 40% stocks. It is the oldest version of the rule and the most conservative of the three, written for shorter retirements and higher bond yields than we have now.
Should I use 100, 110 or 120 minus age?
110 minus age is the most common modern default. 120 suits someone with a pension covering their fixed costs, a long horizon, or a demonstrated ability to hold through a bad decade. 100 suits someone who would sell in a crash, or who has already saved more than they need and has no reason to take the risk.
What asset allocation should a 60-year-old have?
The three rules give 40%, 50% and 60% in stocks at 60, and a target-date glidepath sits near 60%. The spread between them is the honest answer: there is no consensus number, and the choice between them depends on your pension, your spending, and how you behaved the last time markets fell.
Does this include my 401(k) and my IRA?
It should. Allocation is a statement about your whole portfolio, not about each account separately. Looking at one account on its own is how people end up far more conservative, or far more aggressive, than they think they are.
How often should I rebalance?
Once a year is enough for most people, or whenever an asset class drifts more than about five percentage points from its target. Rebalancing more often adds cost and, in a taxable account, tax, without improving the result much.
Is this investment advice?
No. These are published rules of thumb shown side by side so you can see how much they disagree. They know nothing about your risk tolerance, your health, your pension or your tax position. Talk to a qualified professional before changing how your money is invested.
Keep reading
- Retirement asset allocation by age: the full guide
- Net worth by age calculator: where you stand
- Compound interest calculator
- Learning Center: retirement accounts
- All free calculators
This calculator gives estimates for education only. It is not personalized financial, tax or legal advice. Check your numbers with a qualified professional before you make a decision.