Financial independence fundamentals

Sequence of Returns Risk: Why the Order of Your Returns Matters More Than the Average

Two people can retire with the exact same portfolio size, the exact same withdrawal rate, and the exact same average return over the following 30 years — and one of them can run out of money while the other finishes with more than they started. The difference isn't luck in the usual sense. It's the order the returns arrived in, and it matters more than almost anyone building a retirement plan expects it to.

What sequence of returns risk actually is

Sequence of returns risk is the danger that the order of your investment returns, not just their average, determines whether a retirement plan survives. While you're still working and adding money every month, the order of good and bad years barely matters — a crash early in your career and a crash late in your career leave you in roughly the same place by the time you retire, because you're buying shares the whole way through at whatever price is on offer. The moment you start withdrawing instead of contributing, that symmetry breaks. A bad year that happens early in retirement forces you to sell a larger share of a smaller portfolio just to cover the same expenses, leaving fewer shares left over to recover when the market eventually turns around.

Why the average return can lie to you

A portfolio that returns +20%, -15%, +8% in some order and the same three numbers in a different order ends up at the exact same average annual return — but not the same final balance, once withdrawals are added into the mix. Put the -15% year first, while you're also pulling out living expenses, and the portfolio takes a double hit: the market loss and the withdrawal both come out of a balance that never gets the chance to compound back up before more money leaves it. Put that same -15% year last, after the portfolio has already grown from the earlier good years, and it barely dents the plan. The reasonable long-term average you might plug into a spreadsheet is real, but it describes a smooth path no actual retirement ever follows, and the bumps along the real path are exactly what sequence risk is about.

Why this is the hidden engine behind the 4% rule

This is also the mechanism sitting underneath the 4% rule. The rule wasn't calibrated to the average 30-year period in the historical data — it was calibrated to the worst ones, which were almost always the periods where a downturn landed in the first five to ten years of retirement. A withdrawal rate that looks perfectly safe against average returns can fail against a historical sequence that front-loads the pain, which is exactly why the 4% figure sits well below what the average 30-year stretch could have actually supported.

Why it hits hardest right at the start

Sequence risk isn't spread evenly across a retirement — it's concentrated almost entirely in the first five to ten years after you stop adding new money. A downturn in year 25 of a 30-year retirement has very little capacity to do damage, because there's only a small amount of future withdrawals left for a depleted balance to affect. The same downturn in year one or two can permanently shrink the portfolio's ability to support decades of future withdrawals, even if the market fully recovers soon after. This is part of why the step-by-step math in figuring out your retirement number tends to build in a margin of safety rather than targeting the bare minimum portfolio a spreadsheet says you'd need under average conditions.

What actually reduces the risk

None of this is a reason to avoid retiring early — it's a reason to plan for the possibility of a bad opening stretch rather than assume an average one. A few approaches show up repeatedly in how planners address it: holding one to three years of expenses in cash or short-term bonds so a downturn doesn't force stock sales at depressed prices; keeping a flexible withdrawal plan that cuts back after a bad year instead of withdrawing the same inflation-adjusted amount on autopilot; and holding a meaningful allocation to bonds specifically to dampen the size of an early downturn, even though bonds lower the portfolio's long-run average return. Working part-time or trimming spending for a year or two right after a market drop, rather than mid-retirement, also does outsized good — because it's protecting the portfolio during the exact window where the damage compounds hardest.

A short list of what actually moves the needle on sequence risk:

• A cash or bond buffer — enough to cover a year or more of expenses without selling stocks at a loss.
• A flexible withdrawal rate — cutting back after a down year instead of a fixed inflation-adjusted amount regardless of performance.
• A more conservative starting withdrawal rate — the main lever behind the 3%–3.5% figures often used for very long retirements.
• Flexible income on the other side — any part-time or passive income that reduces how much needs to be withdrawn in a bad year.

"It isn't the average return over 30 years that breaks a retirement plan — it's a bad few years landing right at the start, before the portfolio has had any chance to grow back."

Why this is also an argument for real passive income

Sequence risk is specifically a problem for a plan that depends on selling assets to cover expenses — the size of the sale, and therefore the damage from a bad year, scales with how much you need to withdraw. Passive income that arrives on its own, without a sale, sidesteps a chunk of this risk entirely: a dividend payment or rental check shows up in a down market largely the same as it does in an up one, even while the underlying asset's price is temporarily depressed. That's part of why the ratio behind RatRaceScore looks at income directly instead of a withdrawal rate against a balance:

RatRace Score = Monthly Passive Income ÷ Monthly Expenses

A plan built mostly on income rather than on drawing down a balance isn't immune to a bad market — asset prices and expenses can still move — but it's less exposed to the specific mechanism where a downturn forces you to lock in losses by selling more shares than you would in a good year. Watching both sides of that ratio over time, the way tracking your numbers consistently encourages, is what actually tells you whether a bad year calls for a real adjustment or is just noise.

The takeaway

Sequence of returns risk is the reason two retirements with identical average performance can end so differently — the order the returns arrive in, especially in the first several years, matters as much as the average itself. You can't control which sequence the market hands you, but a cash buffer, a willingness to flex spending after a bad year, a more conservative starting withdrawal rate, and real passive income on top of a portfolio all reduce how much that sequence is able to hurt you.

Home · Learn · Charts · Why Track? · Snowball · Terms · Privacy