Sequence of returns risk: why the order of returns matters as much as the average
During the accumulation phase—when an investor is adding to a portfolio rather than withdrawing from it—the order of annual returns is irrelevant to the terminal portfolio value. A 10-year sequence of −20%, +30%, +10%, −5%, +15%, +12%, −8%, +25%, +18%, +5% produces exactly the same final balance as the same returns in any other order, provided no withdrawals are made. But the moment withdrawals begin, this mathematical symmetry breaks. The sequence of returns matters enormously, because withdrawals made during a period of poor returns deplete capital at precisely the moment when the portfolio is most vulnerable. Capital consumed in a down market cannot participate in the subsequent recovery.
Why the sequence matters during withdrawal
Consider two investors who each retire with £1 million, withdraw £40,000 per year, and achieve an average annual return of 5 per cent over 30 years. Investor A experiences poor returns in years 1–5 and strong returns in years 25–30. Investor B experiences strong returns in years 1–5 and poor returns in years 25–30. Despite identical average returns, Investor A's portfolio is exhausted before year 25, while Investor B's portfolio is still growing. The early withdrawals from Investor A's portfolio during the down years deplete the capital base permanently. There is no recovery mechanism—the withdrawn capital is gone.
Quantifying the risk
The standard research framework for sequence risk is the safe withdrawal rate, introduced by William Bengen (1994) and later extended by the Trinity Study. Bengen analysed historical US market data and found that a 4 per cent initial withdrawal rate (inflation-adjusted) had not depleted a balanced portfolio over any 30-year period in the historical record. But this finding is conditional on the sequence of returns encountered in that historical window. Monte Carlo simulations that test the 4 per cent rule across thousands of return sequences show that the probability of portfolio depletion over 30 years ranges from approximately 5 per cent to 30 per cent depending on assumptions about future returns and equity allocation.
Managing sequence of returns risk
Buffer assets (bucket strategy). Maintaining 1–3 years of living expenses in cash or short-term bonds allows equity holdings to remain invested during a bear market rather than being sold to fund withdrawals. The buffer is replenished from the equity portfolio when markets recover. Dynamic withdrawal. Reducing withdrawal amounts during poor market years and increasing them during good years directly addresses the source of the problem. A withdrawal strategy that adjusts spending by ±10–15 per cent depending on portfolio performance substantially extends portfolio longevity at the cost of spending flexibility. Flexible asset allocation. Maintaining higher equity exposure during the early accumulation phase and gradually reducing it as the withdrawal phase approaches reduces the probability that a severe market decline coincides with the earliest and most vulnerable withdrawal years.
Sequence risk in pfolio
pfolio does not include a Monte Carlo simulation tool. The platform's risk framework focuses instead on time-dependent metrics—maximum drawdown, Calmar ratio, drawdown duration, and rolling volatility—computed from the actual historical return series. These metrics describe the path-dependent risk a portfolio has experienced rather than the distribution of paths a model would produce. Risk metrics for any portfolio are visible in pfolio Insights.
Related articles
Disclaimer
Get started now
