Glide Path Optimization: Rising Equity vs Declining in Retirement
Does a rising equity glide path beat a declining one in retirement? It depends on how much you withdraw. In our glide path study (a $1,000,000 portfolio at 65, a 30-year retirement, 160,000 simulated paths per strategy), a rising schedule that goes from 30% to 70% stocks beat a declining 70% to 30% schedule at a 3.5% withdrawal rate (86.3% vs 84.9% success), but lost at 4% (70.1% vs 73.8%) and at 4.5% (50.3% vs 61.1%). A plain static 60/40 was the best of the four preset schedules at all three rates.
So "100 minus your age in stocks" is not a plan, and neither is its mirror image. Here is how the shapes differ, and how to test one on your own numbers.
What Is a Glide Path?
Run your own numbers — FREE
10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Forward-looking forecasts from BlackRock, JPMorgan, Vanguard, GMO, Schwab, Invesco. No account needed.
Try QuantCalc Free →A glide path is how your asset allocation changes over time. Instead of a static 60/40 portfolio forever, you adjust the mix as you approach and move through retirement.
Target date funds use glide paths. So do smart retirees.
Example glide path:
| Age | Stocks | Bonds |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | 90% | 10% |
| 40 | 80% | 20% |
| 50 | 70% | 30% |
| 60 | 60% | 40% |
| 70 | 50% | 50% |
| 80 | 40% | 60% |
The logic: reduce risk as you have less time to recover from crashes. For more on how to think about asset allocation at different life stages, the key is matching risk to your time horizon.
But this conventional wisdom has a problem.
Run your own numbers in the free calculator →
The "100 Minus Age" Problem
The standard declining glide path (more conservative as you age) is not automatically the safe choice, and the rising one is not automatically better.
Why? Sequence of returns risk cuts both ways.
A crash early in retirement is devastating. But so is being too conservative when you're 80 and might live another 20 years.
Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces (“Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glide Path”, Journal of Financial Planning, January 2014, checked 2026-10-11) found that a rising equity glide path, starting conservative and becoming more aggressive, can reduce both the probability and the magnitude of failure; in their study a portfolio that starts at 30% stocks and finishes at 60% did better than one held at 60% throughout. Our own forward-looking test, below, finds that the answer turns on the withdrawal rate.
Three Glide Path Strategies
1. Declining (Traditional)
- Start aggressive, end conservative
- 90% to 40% stocks over time
- Intuitive but not always optimal
2. Static
- Maintain same allocation throughout
- e.g., 60/40 forever
- Simple but ignores sequence risk
3. Rising (Research-Backed)
- Start conservative at retirement
- Increase stocks over time
- 30% to 70% stocks (the schedule in our study; Pfau and Kitces found the best rising paths started around 20-40% stocks)
- Counter-intuitive; in our study it won only at the lowest withdrawal rate tested (3.5%) — also known as a bond tent strategy
Why rising works:
If you retire with 30% stocks and the market crashes in year 1, you lose less. Then you gradually increase stocks when your portfolio has survived the danger zone.
If the market does well early, you miss some upside—but you were never at risk of the worst-case scenario.
How to Find Your Optimal Glide Path
The "best" glide path depends on:
- Your retirement length
- Withdrawal rate
- Expected returns and volatility
- Risk tolerance
Monte Carlo simulation can test different glide paths and show which one maximizes your success probability.
What our study measured (30-year success rate, $1,000,000 at 65; equity share changes every six years; 8 seeds × 20,000 paths per strategy; full tables and method):
| Glide path (stocks, start → end) | 3.5% withdrawal | 4% withdrawal | 4.5% withdrawal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Static 60/40 | 86.4% | 75.3% | 62.2% |
| Declining 70% → 30% | 84.9% | 73.8% | 61.1% |
| Rising 30% → 70% | 86.3% | 70.1% | 50.3% |
Rising won at 3.5%; declining won at 4% and by a wider margin at 4.5% (10.8 points), and each rising-versus-declining difference is more than twice its standard error. These are model results under one forward-looking set of stock and bond assumptions, not a guarantee, and your own numbers can come out differently, which is the reason to test them.
Implementing a Glide Path
Option 1: Target Date Fund
Target date funds come with a built-in glide path. Easy to hold, but you get the fund’s glide path rather than one optimized for your situation.
Option 2: Manual Rebalancing
Set calendar reminders to adjust allocation annually. Check your target, rebalance, done.
Option 3: Optimization Tool
Use a calculator that can test multiple glide paths against Monte Carlo simulation. Find the one that maximizes success for your numbers.
Key Takeaways
- Static allocation ("set and forget") ignores sequence of returns risk
- Traditional declining glide paths aren't always optimal
- A rising glide path (more stocks over time in retirement) helped at a 3.5% withdrawal rate in our study and hurt at 4% and 4.5%
- The best glide path is personal—test different options with simulation
Don't just pick a number. Test it.
Optimize Your Glide Path
QuantCalc's glide path optimizer tests allocation strategies and finds the one that maximizes your success probability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a glide path in retirement investing?
A glide path is a planned schedule for changing your stock-to-bond allocation over time. In the accumulation phase, you typically hold more stocks and gradually shift toward bonds as retirement approaches. Some research supports a 'rising equity' glide path in retirement, starting conservative and adding stocks over time, to reduce sequence of returns risk; whether it beats a declining or static path depends on the withdrawal rate.
Is a rising equity glide path better in retirement?
Not always. In QuantCalc's 30-year glide path study ($1,000,000 at 65, 160,000 simulated paths per strategy), a rising 30% to 70% stock schedule beat a declining 70% to 30% schedule at a 3.5% withdrawal rate (86.3% vs 84.9% success) but lost at 4% (70.1% vs 73.8%) and at 4.5% (50.3% vs 61.1%). A static 60/40 was the best of the four preset schedules at all three rates.
Should I use a target-date fund glide path or customize my own?
Target-date funds use a one-size-fits-all glide path that ignores your personal tax situation, ACA subsidies, Social Security timing, and pension income. Customizing your glide path lets you test those factors on your own numbers instead of accepting the fund's default. Monte Carlo simulation with multi-period asset allocation lets you test different glide paths against thousands of market scenarios.
Frequently Asked Questions
A glide path is a planned schedule for changing your stock-to-bond allocation over time. In the accumulation phase, you typically hold more stocks and gradually shift toward bonds as retirement approaches. Some research supports a 'rising equity' glide path in retirement, starting conservative and adding stocks over time, to reduce sequence of returns risk; whether it beats a declining or static path depends on the withdrawal rate.
Not always. In QuantCalc's 30-year glide path study ($1,000,000 at 65, 160,000 simulated paths per strategy), a rising 30% to 70% stock schedule beat a declining 70% to 30% schedule at a 3.5% withdrawal rate (86.3% vs 84.9% success) but lost at 4% (70.1% vs 73.8%) and at 4.5% (50.3% vs 61.1%). A static 60/40 was the best of the four preset schedules at all three rates.
Target-date funds use a one-size-fits-all glide path that ignores your personal tax situation, ACA subsidies, Social Security timing, and pension income. Customizing your glide path lets you test those factors on your own numbers instead of accepting the fund's default. Monte Carlo simulation with multi-period asset allocation lets you test different glide paths against thousands of market scenarios.