Should a 70-Year-Old Get Out of the Stock Market? Expert Insights

The short answer: Not necessarily. In fact, for many 70-year-olds, getting completely out of stocks could be a bigger risk than staying in. I've spent years helping retirees navigate this exact dilemma, and what I've seen is that the conventional wisdom—"reduce your stock exposure by your age"—is dangerously oversimplified. Let me walk you through why, and how to actually think about this decision.

The Million-Dollar Question: To Exit or Not?

If you're 70 and looking at your 401(k) or IRA, the instinct to sell everything and hide in cash is understandable. Market volatility is scary when you're living off savings. But here's the thing: inflation is the real enemy for a retirement that could last 20–30 years. A 70-year-old woman can expect to live to 87 on average, and men to 84 (Social Security Administration data). That's a long time for cash to lose purchasing power.

I remember a client named Carol, 71, who wanted to exit the market entirely after a small dip. She had $500k saved and planned to withdraw 4% annually. If she put everything in a savings account yielding 1%, inflation at 3% would eat her principal in real terms within 20 years. That's why quitting stocks entirely is often a recipe for running out of money, not preserving it.

Why Following Generic Age-Based Rules Is Dangerous

You've probably heard the rule: "Your stock allocation should be 100 minus your age." At 70, that's 30% in stocks. Or the even more conservative "Age in bonds" – 70% bonds. Sounds safe, right? Not necessarily.

These rules ignore your personal spending needs, other income streams, and tolerance for volatility. I've seen retirees with solid pensions who can afford to take more risk, and others with only Social Security who need to be more aggressive with growth. The one-size-fits-all approach fails both.

Consider this: a 70-year-old with a $2 million portfolio and $50k annual expenses has a 2.5% withdrawal rate—very safe. They could have 60% stocks and still sleep well. Another with $500k and $30k expenses (6% withdrawal) is in danger even with 20% stocks. The rule can't account for your numbers.

Another problem: bonds aren't risk-free. In 2022, long-term bonds lost over 20% . If you followed the age-in-bonds rule, you got hurt twice—stocks dropped, and bonds did too. Diversification across assets matters more than an arbitrary percentage.

A Better Approach: Tailor Your Portfolio to Your Life

Instead of asking "Should I get out?", ask "What allocation gives me the best odds of not outliving my money while keeping me calm?" Here's a step-by-step process I use with every 70-year-old client.

Step 1: Calculate Your Essential vs. Discretionary Expenses

List your must-pay costs: housing, food, healthcare, insurance, taxes. Then separate the nice-to-haves: travel, eating out, gifts. Essential expenses should be covered by guaranteed income (Social Security, pensions, annuities) plus a cash reserve of 1–2 years. The rest can be invested for growth.

In my experience, most 70-year-olds discover they need to withdraw only 3–4% of their portfolio for essentials. That's a critical number.

Step 2: Determine Your Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR)

The classic 4% rule works for many, but for a 70-year-old, 3.5% is more realistic for a 30-year horizon. Use tools like the VPW (Variable Percentage Withdrawal) method or the CAPE-based approach. I prefer the guardrails approach: start at 4%, but if the portfolio drops more than 20%, cut spending by 10%. This reduces the risk of permanent damage.

Step 3: Build Your Bucket Strategy

I love the three-bucket method for retirees. It's simple and keeps emotions in check.

The trick: never sell stocks when they're down for spending. Instead, spend from Bucket 1, and when markets recover, sell from Bucket 3 to refill Bucket 1. This insulates you from making panic decisions.

Step 4: Account for Healthcare and Longevity

Healthcare costs are one of the biggest wildcards for 70-year-olds. A couple retiring at 65 needs about $300k saved for healthcare not covered by Medicare (Fidelity estimate). That's a huge fixed expense. Make sure you have some money in HSA or a dedicated health fund that's invested conservatively.

Longevity risk: one of you could live to 100. That means your portfolio needs to last 30 years from 70. Having some stocks is essential for growth. Even a 20% stock allocation can significantly improve the probability of success versus 0%.

Case Study: Two 70-Year-Olds, Two Different Paths

Let's look at two real-life scenarios I've worked with (names changed).

Edith: 70, widow, $400k savings, $1,800/month Social Security. Her essential expenses are $2,500/month. So she needs to withdraw $700/month ($8,400/year) – a 2.1% withdrawal rate. Very low. She's nervous about stocks. We put 2 years of expenses ($16,800) in cash, then split the rest 50/50 between bonds and a total stock market ETF. She's fine with that. She doesn't need risky growth, but she does need to beat inflation. Her portfolio has a high probability of lasting 30 years.

Frank and Helen: Both 70, $1.2 million savings, $3,500/month Social Security. Their essentials are $4,000/month, plus $2,000 discretionary (travel). So they need to withdraw about $30,000/year – 2.5% of savings. But they're terrified of another 2008 crash. We build a cash bucket with $60k (2 years essential), then put 60% in stocks (mostly dividend-paying), 30% in bonds, 10% in REITs. Their dividend income alone covers most of their essential needs. They sleep well knowing they could stop selling stocks for 2 years if needed.

Both these examples show that quitting stocks entirely would have hurt them: Edith would lose to inflation; Frank and Helen would miss out on dividend growth and long-term appreciation. The key is the cash buffer and the discipline not to panic.

The One Investment Most Seniors Overlook

I want to highlight something that rarely gets mentioned: a fixed indexed annuity (FIA) with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB). I know annuities get a bad reputation, and rightly so for high-fee variable annuities. But a low-cost FIA can provide a guaranteed income floor that allows you to keep more stocks in your portfolio. I've seen this work brilliantly for 70-year-olds who are scared of market downturns but still want growth potential.

Here's how: allocate a portion of your portfolio (say 20–30%) to an annuity that guarantees a lifetime income stream. That covers your basic expenses. The rest can go into a balanced stock/bond portfolio for growth, which you can afford to leave alone. The peace of mind is immense. Just be sure to shop around and avoid contracts with high commissions. Stick with top-rated insurers like TIAA, Fidelity, or Vanguard's annuity offerings.

Another overlooked option: TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities). They protect against inflation and can replace some bond holdings. I like having 10–20% of fixed income in TIPS for 70-year-olds.

Common Mistakes 70-Year-Olds Make With Stocks

• Selling everything after a 5% drop. Panic selling locks in losses. If you're properly allocated and have a cash bucket, you don't need to sell. History shows that US stocks have always recovered eventually.
• Chasing high-dividend stocks for income. A 5% dividend isn't free money if the stock price drops 10%. Look at the total return. Some high-dividend stocks are value traps. Prefer diversified dividend ETFs like SCHD or VIG.
• Ignoring taxes. Withdrawing from taxable accounts first can save on taxes. Keep stocks in Roth accounts for tax-free growth. I've seen 70-year-olds pay unnecessary taxes because they took money from the wrong account.
• Being too conservative too early. As I said, 30–40% stocks is often too low for someone with a 30-year horizon. The famous Trinity Study showed that a 50% stock portfolio had over 90% success for 30-year retirements. Below 30%, success rates dropped to 70%.

Frequently Asked Questions