Asset Allocation by Age Calculator

What is an age-based asset allocation?

Most personal-finance guidance recommends holding a higher share of stocks when young — more time to recover from downturns — and gradually shifting toward bonds as retirement approaches, preserving capital and reducing sequence-of-returns risk. The “glide path” is the trajectory of that shift over time. This page shows four common versions side by side, with every number explained.

The minus-age heuristics — and the “bonds = your age” equivalence

The 100-, 110-, and 120-minus-age formulas are rules of thumb widely cited in personal-finance literature. Each produces a stock percentage for a given age:

100 − age → stocks%   (e.g., age 35 → 65% stocks)
110 − age → stocks%   (e.g., age 35 → 75% stocks)
120 − age → stocks%   (e.g., age 35 → 85% stocks)
bonds% = 100 − stocks%  (always)

A common framing you may have heard — “hold bonds equal to your age” — is algebraically the same as 100-minus-age. Both formulas produce the same output. The naming difference confuses many readers; this is the same rule.

Higher X means more aggressive: the 120-minus-age rule keeps an investor 85% in stocks at age 35, while 100-minus-age keeps them at 65%. None of these is an official standard — they are convenient starting points, not optimal allocations for any individual. Their value is transparency: the formula is fully visible and the output is exact.

The Vanguard glide path — how it works and what it models

The Vanguard path is modeled as a piecewise-linear interpolation through Vanguard’s published anchor points (source: “Choice of equity landing points can benefit target-date investors,” Vanguard Thought Leadership, May 2025):

• Hold zone (ages ≤ R−25): 90% equity. The logic: a long accumulation horizon tolerates short-term volatility.
• Glide 1 (R−25 to R): linear decline from 90% to 50% at retirement. For R=65: ages 40 to 65.
• Glide 2 (R to R+7): linear decline from 50% to 30%. New retirees still need growth to fund a potentially 30+ year retirement.
• Terminal (age > R+7): 30% equity, held flat. For R=65: from age 72 onward.

Verification at R=65: age 40 → 90%; age 60 → 58% (Morningstar reports “about 60%” — the 2-point difference is the stated rounding); age 65 → 50%; age 72 → 30%. All four anchors match published figures.

This tool models the Vanguard glide path — it is not the exact holdings of any fund. The actual Vanguard Target Retirement funds have minor non-linear adjustments not captured by the piecewise-linear interpolation used here.

How the retirement age input works (and why it matters for FIRE)

The minus-age rules ignore retirement age entirely — they are pure age-based formulas. The Vanguard path is defined relative to the target retirement date, so shifting R changes where all the anchors fall.

For an early retiree targeting R=55: the 90% hold zone ends at age 30, 50% equity is reached at 55, and the terminal 30% begins at 62 — substantially more aggressive in the working years than the standard R=65 path. At age 50 with R=55, the Vanguard path shows 58% stocks, compared to 74% for R=65 at the same age (the glide is much steeper with less time before retirement).

Use the retirement-age input to model your own retirement date. For early retirees (FIRE), this produces a meaningfully different Vanguard path. The three minus-age rules are unaffected by the retirement age input.

What this tool does not model — and why

Every exclusion below is a reason the rule-implied allocation may not match what is actually right for you. Honesty about limitations is a stronger credibility signal than a black-box recommendation.

• Sub-allocation (US vs. international stocks). This tool outputs only the top-level stock/bond ratio. Once you know your stock allocation, use the Three-Fund Portfolio Builder to set a US/international split.
• Return, growth, and projection. Nothing is modeled over time. The tool shows the rule-implied allocation for today’s age only. For compounding projections, see the Compound Interest Calculator or the Coast FIRE Calculator.
• Risk tolerance, income stability, and individual factors. A real allocation decision depends on more than age: time horizon, income stability, other assets, goals, and financial situation. These are beyond the scope of any age-based formula.
• Minus-age rules are heuristics, not standards. No authoritative body prescribes these as standards. They are convenient starting points. “Every additional assumption is another way the number can be wrong.”

Frequently asked questions

Which rule should I use?

This tool doesn’t pick a rule — that decision depends on your risk tolerance, time horizon, goals, and other financial factors that no formula can capture. In general, a higher X (e.g., 120) keeps more equity through the working years and de-risks more slowly, which some investors favor for longer planning horizons or higher risk tolerance. A lower X (e.g., 100) is more conservative. The Vanguard path holds a higher equity allocation earlier and then glides down more steeply near retirement. All four are heuristics, not prescriptions.

Why does the Vanguard line stay flat, then drop steeply near retirement?

The Vanguard glide path is designed in two segments. During the long accumulation phase (more than 25 years before retirement), it holds a high equity allocation — the assumption being that a long horizon can tolerate short-term volatility. In the 25 years approaching retirement, it declines linearly to 50% at retirement. It then continues declining to 30% in the 7 years after retirement (the “landing zone”), reflecting that new retirees still need growth to fund a potentially 30+ year retirement. After that, it holds at 30% as a long-term stable allocation.

Is 100-minus-age the same as “bonds = your age”?

Yes. If bonds = your age (e.g., 35% bonds at age 35), then stocks = 100 − 35 = 65%, which is exactly what 100-minus-age computes. They are the same formula stated from different directions.

Why no growth or return projection here?

By design. A projection would require you to enter expected returns and inflation — assumptions that are uncertain and that this tool refuses to model silently. The tool is deliberately deterministic: given your age (and retirement age for the Vanguard path), it returns a rule-implied allocation with no further assumptions. For compounding projections, see the Compound Interest Calculator. For how today’s portfolio projects toward a retirement target, see the Coast FIRE Calculator.

How do I split the stock portion across US and international?

This tool outputs only the top-level stock/bond ratio. Once you know your stock allocation, the Three-Fund Portfolio Builder takes that stock percentage and lets you set a US/international split, then computes the exact dollar amounts for each fund.

Sources: Vanguard: “Choice of equity landing points can benefit target-date investors” (May 2025) · Morningstar: Vanguard Target Retirement funds (glide-path summary)

Last reviewed: June 2026. The minus-age heuristics and Vanguard anchor points are not annual-limit figures; they are named-methodology constants. No jurisdiction- or tax-year dependency. Staleness risk: the Vanguard anchor points could shift if Vanguard revises its target-date strategy.

This tool is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not financial, investment, or tax advice. The minus-age figures are common rules of thumb, not standards. The Vanguard line models published anchor points and is not the exact holdings of any fund. Age is one input among many; a real allocation decision depends on risk tolerance, time horizon, other assets, goals, and your financial situation. Consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions.