How Does Sequence of Returns Risk Threaten Retirees Even With Average Returns?

Sequence of returns risk means that poor markets early in retirement can permanently damage your withdrawal strategy, even if your average return over 30 years is strong. When you are withdrawing money during a downturn, you are forced to sell more shares at depressed prices. Those shares are gone permanently. When markets recover, you have fewer shares left to participate in the rebound. Research by Dr. Wade Pfau shows approximately 77% of your final retirement outcome is determined by returns in just the first 10 years of retirement. The timing of gains and losses matters far more than the average. Lifestyle-First planning with Protected Lifetime Income shields your essential spending from this risk so you never have to sell investments at the worst possible time.

What Is Sequence of Returns Risk?

Sequence of returns risk is one of the most important and least understood threats to retirement security. Most people focus on average investment returns when planning for retirement. But in retirement, when you are withdrawing from your portfolio rather than adding to it, the order those returns arrive matters far more than the average.

Here is why. If markets drop early in your retirement while you are withdrawing money to cover expenses, you are forced to sell more shares at depressed prices to generate the same income. That permanently reduces the number of shares left to recover when markets bounce back. Even if markets produce strong returns over the following 20 years, your portfolio may never fully recover from the damage done in those first few bad years. As Dr. Wade Pfau explains: a portfolio taking withdrawals is permanently impaired by early losses in a way that a portfolio purely growing with no withdrawals is not. See Pfau’s sequence of returns risk white paper.

There is also a behavioral dimension to sequence risk that rarely gets discussed. Many retirees describe constant anxiety every time markets drop, even when their plan could sustain it mathematically. That anxiety leads to underspending, missed experiences, and a retirement that never feels as free as it should. A guaranteed income floor eliminates that anxiety at the source by making market performance irrelevant to your essential spending.

Why the First 10 Years Make or Break Your Retirement

Dr. Pfau’s research shows that approximately 77% of your portfolio’s final outcome is determined by the returns in just the first 10 years of retirement. That is a striking and important finding. It means that two retirees with identical 30-year average returns can end up in completely different financial situations depending purely on when the bad years hit.

If the bad years come early, when you are still withdrawing money regularly, the damage can be permanent. If they come late, after your portfolio has had a decade or more to grow, you can absorb them without lasting harm. The math is not symmetric. Early losses during withdrawals hurt far more than late losses.

Same Average Return, Opposite Outcomes

How Withdrawals Lock In Losses Permanently

Real-World Examples of Sequence Risk in Action

The 1973 to 1974 Bear Market

The S&P 500 dropped 48% and inflation averaged 9.3% per year. A retiree who began withdrawals in 1973 lost approximately 30% of their savings in just two years before accounting for inflation. Kitces research illustrates the dramatic impact of timing: a retiree who retired at the start of this crisis finished with $278,000 after 30 years, while a retiree who retired just two years later, after the recovery had begun, finished with $3.36 million. Their long-term average returns were nearly identical. Only the sequence was different. See the Kitces research.

The 2000 to 2002 Dot-Com Crash

The S&P 500 lost 47.2%. A retiree with a $1,000,000 portfolio withdrawing $40,000 per year would have seen their balance nearly cut in half by the end of the third year of retirement. Even though markets eventually recovered, those early withdrawals locked in losses that could not be recovered. See Investopedia on sequence risk.

The 2008 to 2009 Financial Crisis

The S&P 500 fell 54%. Retirees who had just begun withdrawals saw dramatic portfolio declines. Because the market rebounded relatively quickly compared to the 1973 to 1974 period, most portfolios following a 4% withdrawal strategy were able to recover. This illustrates that the duration of a downturn matters as much as its depth. A short, sharp crash is far less damaging to a withdrawal strategy than a prolonged bear market in the early years of retirement.

The Mason vs. Dixon Story

Mason retired in 1983 with just over $400,000 and ended with nearly $2.7 million after 30 years of withdrawals. Dixon retired in 1967 with over $2.1 million, more than five times Mason’s starting wealth, but ran out of money before 30 years due to poor early returns and high inflation in the first decade. Starting wealth was essentially irrelevant. Sequence was everything. See the Kitces research.

What the Research Says About Protecting Against Sequence Risk

• Morningstar 2025: Recommends a 3.9% safe starting withdrawal rate for a 90% probability of not outliving savings over 30 years, lower than the traditional 4% rule, specifically because of today’s elevated valuations and heightened sequence risk. See the Morningstar research.
• BlackRock and EBRI: Adding a guaranteed income floor can increase potential retirement spending by an average of 22% compared to withdrawal-only strategies, because you never have to sell investments at a loss to cover essential expenses. See the BlackRock whitepaper.
• Blanchett, Finke, and Pfau: Retirees with higher levels of Protected Lifetime Income can safely spend at rates approaching 6%, compared to much lower sustainable rates for those relying entirely on portfolio withdrawals. See the research.
• Guardrails strategies: Dynamic withdrawal strategies that adjust spending up or down based on portfolio performance produce 15% higher median ending balances over 30 years compared to static withdrawal rules. See the Morningstar guardrails research.

How Lifestyle-First Planning Shields You from Sequence Risk

Lifestyle-First planning addresses sequence risk at its source rather than trying to manage around it. The core problem with any withdrawal-only strategy is that your essential spending depends on market performance. When markets fall, you are forced to sell to pay your bills. That is the damage mechanism. Lifestyle-First planning eliminates it.

Essential expenses and non-negotiable experiences are covered by Protected Lifetime Income first. That income arrives every month regardless of what markets do. A market drop in year two of your retirement cannot threaten your housing, healthcare, food, or the experiences that define your retirement. Your growth assets can stay invested through downturns and participate fully in recoveries without being depleted at the worst possible time.

This also changes how you experience market volatility emotionally. Instead of watching a portfolio decline and calculating how many months of expenses remain, you know your income floor is secure. The market becomes an opportunity for your growth assets rather than a threat to your lifestyle. That is a fundamentally different retirement experience, and it is backed by research showing 22% more potential spending power on average compared to withdrawal-only approaches.

Myths and Truths About Sequence of Returns Risk

• Myth: Sequence risk only matters if you retire right before a major crash.
  Truth: Even moderate downturns early in retirement cause lasting damage to a withdrawal strategy because you are forced to sell more shares at low prices, reducing what is left to recover.
• Myth: If my average return over 30 years is good, I will be fine.
  Truth: The order of returns matters far more than the average. Dr. Pfau’s research shows 77% of your final outcome is determined by the first 10 years. Two retirees with identical averages can end up in completely different financial situations.
• Myth: You can just wait for markets to recover after a bad year.
  Truth: Withdrawals during downturns lock in losses permanently. When markets recover, you have fewer shares than you would have had without withdrawing, and that gap never fully closes.
• Myth: The 4% rule protects against sequence risk.
  Truth: Morningstar’s 2025 research recommends starting at 3.9% for 90% confidence over 30 years, and even that can fail if poor markets arrive early. The 4% rule does not eliminate sequence risk. It simply sets a withdrawal level that has survived most historical sequences in past data.
• Myth: Protected Lifetime Income means giving up growth potential.
  Truth: PLI covers only your essential income floor. Everything above that stays in growth assets. Once essentials are secured, most clients invest their remaining assets more confidently, not less.
• Myth: Guardrails strategies fully solve the sequence risk problem.
  Truth: Guardrails significantly reduce sequence risk and produce 15% higher median ending balances. But they cannot fully protect essential spending during a prolonged downturn because your basic expenses are still tied to portfolio performance. Pairing guardrails with a PLI income floor for essentials gives you the strongest possible protection.

Pros and Cons of Protecting Against Sequence Risk

Pros of Lifestyle-First Planning with PLI:

• Essential spending is covered by guaranteed income that markets cannot touch
• Growth assets can stay invested through downturns without being forced to liquidate at losses
• Eliminates the anxiety and behavioral risk that comes from market-dependent essential spending
• BlackRock and EBRI research supports 22% more potential spending power versus withdrawal-only strategies
• Guardrails on the growth layer produce 15% higher median ending balances over 30 years
• Retirees with higher PLI levels can safely spend at rates approaching 6% according to Blanchett, Finke, and Pfau research

Cons to Keep in Mind:

• Requires upfront planning to correctly size your income floor and select appropriate PLI solutions
• Some assets are committed to protected income, which reduces near-term liquidity for other goals
• Ongoing annual review is needed to adjust for inflation, healthcare costs, and changing circumstances
• Transitioning from a withdrawal-only mindset to a two-layer structure requires learning and adjustment

Summary

Sequence of returns risk is real, it is measurable, and it is one of the primary reasons well-funded retirements fail. The order of returns in your first decade of retirement matters far more than your lifetime average return. The most effective defense is a guaranteed income floor that covers your essential expenses regardless of what markets do, freeing your growth assets to do their job without being depleted at the worst possible time. When you combine Protected Lifetime Income for essentials with growth assets and dynamic withdrawals for everything else, you have a retirement structure that is built to withstand what markets actually do, not just what they average.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I protect against both inflation and sequence risk at the same time?

The two-layer approach addresses both simultaneously. Protected Lifetime Income for essential expenses eliminates sequence risk for your core lifestyle. Growth assets positioned for long-term purchasing power address inflation. Because the growth layer is not needed for immediate expenses, it can stay invested through downturns and recover fully rather than being depleted when prices are lowest.

Why does the 4% rule fail to protect against sequence risk?

The 4% rule assumes a fixed withdrawal percentage from a market-dependent portfolio. When markets fall early in retirement, you withdraw more shares than you would in a good market to generate the same dollar amount. Those extra shares sold at depressed prices are permanently gone, and the 4% rule provides no mechanism to compensate for that damage. Morningstar’s 2025 research now recommends starting at 3.9% for 90% confidence, and even that carries a 10% failure rate driven primarily by adverse sequences.

Is a Protected Lifetime Income solution the right tool to address sequence risk?

For the specific job of removing essential spending from market dependence, a fixed indexed annuity with a GLWB is the most effective tool currently available. When your bills are covered by guaranteed income, you never have to sell growth assets during a downturn. Sequence risk becomes irrelevant for your essential lifestyle, which is the goal. The trade-offs of reduced liquidity and insurer dependence need to be understood and weighed carefully.

What is a smart withdrawal strategy that reduces sequence risk?

Cover essential expenses with Protected Lifetime Income first, then use a guardrails-based adaptive withdrawal strategy for growth assets. Guardrails set upper and lower spending thresholds so withdrawals flex with market conditions rather than forcing you to sell at fixed amounts regardless of portfolio value. Research shows this combination produces 15% higher median ending balances over 30 years compared to static withdrawal rules while significantly reducing the frequency of forced spending cuts.

Can guardrail strategies prevent spending cuts on their own?

Guardrails significantly reduce the frequency and severity of spending cuts compared to static withdrawal rules, and produce 15% higher median ending balances over 30 years. But they cannot fully eliminate the risk of pulling back during a prolonged downturn because essential spending is still tied to portfolio performance. Pairing guardrails with a PLI income floor for essentials gives you the strongest possible structure against sequence risk.

Is the 4% rule still safe given today’s sequence risk environment?

Morningstar’s 2025 research recommends starting at no more than 3.9% for 90% confidence over 30 years, and the Shiller CAPE ratio is currently over 40, more than double its historical average. Elevated valuations mean lower expected future returns, which makes adverse sequences more likely and more damaging. For most retirees in 2026, relying entirely on a fixed withdrawal rule is a significant and unnecessary risk.

What is a retirement income floor and how does it neutralize sequence risk?

A retirement income floor is a guaranteed income stream that covers your essential expenses regardless of market conditions. When your bills are paid by protected income rather than portfolio withdrawals, a market downturn cannot force you to sell investments at a loss. Your growth assets can stay invested and recover fully without being depleted when prices are lowest. That is the mechanism that neutralizes sequence risk for your essential lifestyle.

How does the Social Security claiming age interact with sequence risk?

When your essential expenses are covered by Protected Lifetime Income, you are not forced to claim Social Security early to pay your bills during a market downturn. That flexibility often makes delaying to age 70 one of the highest-return decisions available. Waiting from full retirement age to 70 increases your benefit by up to 32% permanently, adding more guaranteed income to your floor and further reducing your dependence on portfolio withdrawals during the critical early years.

Does Missouri tax Social Security, and how does that affect sequence risk planning?

As of 2026, Missouri fully exempts Social Security benefits from state income tax with no income limits. This gives Missouri retirees more flexibility in managing their overall taxable income, which in turn affects how much they need to withdraw from growth assets each year and their exposure to IRMAA surcharges.

Does Florida tax Social Security, and how does that affect sequence risk planning?

Florida has no state income tax, so Social Security, PLI income, and investment withdrawals are all free from state taxation. This makes Florida one of the most efficient states for managing withdrawals and reduces the total amount retirees need to pull from growth assets each year.

Does Nebraska tax Social Security, and how does that affect sequence risk planning?

As of tax year 2025, Nebraska fully exempts all Social Security benefits from state income tax with no income thresholds or phase-outs. Nebraska retirees have more flexibility in managing taxable income and reducing portfolio withdrawal pressure during the critical early years of retirement.

Does Kansas tax Social Security, and how does that affect sequence risk planning?

Kansas exempts Social Security for residents with federal AGI of $75,000 or less. Careful income planning, including PLI sizing and Roth conversion strategies, can help Kansas retirees stay below this threshold and reduce the total amount they need to withdraw from growth assets each year.

Does Iowa tax Social Security, and how does that affect sequence risk planning?

Iowa does not tax Social Security for residents age 55 or older and also exempts most other qualifying retirement income for eligible taxpayers. Iowa retirees have meaningful flexibility in managing their withdrawal needs and reducing portfolio dependence during the years when sequence risk is most dangerous.

Educational only. Not tax, legal, or individualized investment advice. Guarantees rely on the issuing insurer’s claims-paying ability. Any figures shown are illustrative and may differ for your situation based on age, health, product features, fees, allocations, and market conditions. Portfolio sequence examples are hypothetical and for educational purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Always consult a qualified financial, tax, or legal professional for your specific situation.

Return to the Retirement Income Answers Hub