The instinct at retirement is straightforward: no more salary, so move everything into fixed deposits and treat market risk as someone else’s problem now. That instinct doesn’t remove risk. It trades a loud, visible one for a quiet one that doesn’t announce itself the way a market fall does - purchasing power erosion, compounded over a retirement that, for someone retiring today, plausibly needs to fund 25 to 30 years.
Start with what an all-debt portfolio actually delivers, after tax and inflation:
- A 7% fixed deposit, for an investor in the 30% tax bracket, nets 4.9% post-tax.
- Against 6% inflation - unremarkable for India over most of the last two decades - that’s a real return of about -1.04% a year. Not a low return. A negative one.
- ₹10,00,000 left entirely in FDs, reinvested every year, compounds to a nominal ₹42,00,149 after 30 years - but in today’s purchasing power, that’s worth only ₹7,31,288. Down 27%, while the statement shows the balance more than quadrupling.
Now the same ₹10,00,000, split 60% debt (same 4.9% post-tax FD) and 40% equity (an illustrative 12% nominal, no interim tax drag assumed):
Real (inflation-adjusted) value of ₹10,00,000 over a 30-year retirement: 100% FD versus a 60% debt / 40% equity split. Both start identical; only the equity allocation differs.
The blended portfolio’s real return is a modest but positive 1.64% a year. In today’s purchasing power, it’s worth ₹16,29,796 after 30 years - a genuine 63% gain in what the money can actually buy. Same starting capital, same 30 years. The only difference is the 40 percentage points of equity that a “just retired, go to zero” decision would have removed entirely.
This isn’t a fringe reading. Bill Bengen - the researcher behind the 4% withdrawal rule - has said abandoning equities in retirement is a mistake, and has put the optimal retirement allocation at 50-75% equity. Morningstar’s David Blanchett makes the same point from the opposite direction, on the other extreme: no one who works with real retirees would recommend 100% equity either. Indian commentary lands in the same range from its own angle - Value Research’s house view is that most retirees should keep at least 20-30% in fixed income, which sets a floor under debt, not a floor of zero under equity.
None of this argues for concentration or aggressive risk-taking at the point of retirement - the same body of research is just as clear that all-equity is its own mistake, for exactly the volatility reasons intuition worries about. It argues against the other extreme. The case for holding some equity at retirement isn’t a bet that markets go up from here. It’s that a 25-30 year retirement has enough runway left in it that all-debt isn’t the safe choice it looks like - it’s a slower, quieter risk wearing safety’s clothing.
Back to Writing