# Sequence Risk: Why the S&P 500's Average Return Misleads

Olivia Watson · August 29, 2026

> Sequence Risk: Why the S&P 500's Average Return Misleads. This stark contrast exposes a fundamental flaw in conventional financial pl...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Arithmetic averages mask withdrawal timing risks | The cited 10% historical return ignores how early negative returns during the drawdown phase permanently impair capital growth |
| Identical long-term averages produce divergent retiree outcomes | A portfolio experiencing the same 10% average return yielded a surplus for a 1990 entrant but depleted significantly by 2002 for a 2000 entrant |
| Volatility drag distorts time-weighted performance metrics | Market cycles between 1990 and 2024 demonstrate that double-digit gains cannot offset sharp declines when withdrawals occur during downturns |
| Retirement planning requires sequence-aware modeling | Relying on a flat 10% annualized figure obscures the critical impact of return order on portfolio longevity and income sustainability |

This stark contrast exposes a fundamental flaw in conventional financial planning. The widely circulated 10% historical figure operates as an arithmetic mean that assumes smooth, time-weighted compounding. In reality, retirees face sequence risk, where the chronological order of returns dictates survival. Early market declines force asset liquidation at depressed prices, permanently removing recovery potential from the portfolio before subsequent bull markets can restore value.

Decades of equity data spanning 1990 through 2024 confirm that volatility drag and withdrawal sequencing consistently override headline averages. Planning models that treat market performance as a static percentage ignore the mechanical reality that drawing income during bear markets accelerates depletion. Sustainable retirement strategies must prioritize return distribution and cash flow timing over nominal long-term yields.

According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, the S&P 500’s arithmetic mean annual total return from 1990 through 2024 was roughly 11.5%, while the compounded geometric return (CAGR) settled at approximately 10.3%. That ~1.2-point divergence is not a rounding artifact; it is volatility drag, mathematically approximated by σ²/2 given the era’s ~15.5% annualized standard deviation. The gap exists because compounding penalizes variance: large negative returns require disproportionately larger positive returns just to break even, and the index reports the unweighted average of those outcomes rather than the path-dependent reality of an actual account.

![Sequence Risk](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-ai-f55df2eb.jpg)

## Volatility Drag

The distinction between time-weighted and dollar-weighted returns dictates whether that 10.3% figure ever reaches your bank account. Time-weighted return strips out cash flows and measures pure asset performance—the metric indices publish. Dollar-weighted return incorporates the timing and magnitude of deposits and withdrawals via internal rate of return (IRR). When withdrawals coincide with drawdowns, you are forced to liquidate more shares at depressed prices to fund fixed living expenses. This mechanical selling locks in losses and permanently reduces the share count available for recovery, ensuring the dollar-weighted return is always ≤ the time-weighted return whenever outflows align with market declines.

The canonical rule follows directly from this mechanics: size retirement withdrawals against a sequence-stressed dollar-weighted return assumption of roughly 6–7%, validated against the actual 2000–2010 withdrawal sequence, never against the 10% arithmetic average. Treating the headline figure as a guaranteed annual yield ignores that a -22% year arriving in year three of retirement inflicts damage no later +26% year can fully repair for someone drawing income. Adjust the baseline downward, preserve liquidity buffers for the first five years, and let the portfolio compound on recovered capital rather than subsidizing fixed payouts during structural declines.

William Bengen's 1994 Journal of Financial Planning study established the 4% rule by stress-testing retirement portfolios against historical US sequences, yet its foundational assumption was a critical blind spot: the analysis period ended in 1993. The 2000–2010 retiree became the first live test of this framework against a back-to-back dot-com crash and global financial crisis, exposing that the rule's safety margin evaporated when sequence risk aligned with peak valuations. According to Morningstar's annual 'State of Retirement Income' report (lead author Christine Benz), which in 2026 continues to track these dynamics, the firm cut the 30-year safe withdrawal rate to 3.3% specifically because the 2000 and 1966-style sequences demonstrated that high starting valuations combined with early-sequence losses deplete portfolios faster than the historical average implies. This adjustment reflects a structural reality: the arithmetic mean masks the compounding damage of negative returns occurring when portfolio balances are still large enough to absorb significant dollar losses.

The mechanics of this erosion are quantifiable. From January 2000 through December 2009, the S&P 500 total return index produced a cumulative return of approximately -9.1%, creating a decade where a portfolio experienced essentially zero compounded growth despite the market's long-run ~10% average. A retiree withdrawing during this window faced a double bind: required distributions reduced principal just as the remaining assets generated no recovery gains. Wade Pfau's research, published in the Journal of Financial Planning in 2010–2011, confirms that safe withdrawal rates depend far more on the market's valuation and yield at the retirement start date than on the full-period average. Retirees starting at Shiller CAPE above 25, as observed in 2000 and again in 2021, historically faced materially lower sustainable withdrawal rates because elevated entry multiples compress future returns regardless of subsequent monetary policy or earnings growth.

| Window | Annual Returns | Impact on $1M / $40k Withdrawal | Dollar-Weighted Drag vs. Index |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2000–2002 | -9.1%, -11.9%, -22.1% | Principal eroded by ~38% over three years; withdrawal ratio spikes to >12% | -2.8 pp below CAGR |
| 2008 | -37.0% | Single-year portfolio contraction to ~$630k; withdrawal consumes 6.3% of remaining balance | -3.1 pp below CAGR |
| 2022 | -18.1% | Balance drops to ~$819k; fixed $40k withdrawal represents 4.9% of post-decline equity | -2.4 pp below CAGR |

This dynamic creates a binary outcome based on life phase. Michael Kitces' research (Kitces.com, 'Understanding Sequence of Return Risk') demonstrates that sequence risk is strictly phase-dependent: for accumulators, poor early returns are irrelevant to final outcomes because contributions buy shares at lower prices, whereas for the first ~10 years of withdrawals, early returns explain the majority of final-portfolio variance. When a -22% year arrives in year three of retirement, the damage is irreversible for a drawdown portfolio; no later +26% year can fully repair the loss of principal units sold at depressed prices. The myth that withdrawing 4% from a portfolio earning 10% is self-funding collapses under this mechanism, treating a time-weighted arithmetic average as if it were a guaranteed annual yield while ignoring that early-sequence drawdowns permanently alter the trajectory of compound growth.

![Volatility Drag — Sequence Risk](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-ai-5d67f086.jpg)

## The 2000 Retiree Problem

Retirement planners routinely confuse the S&P 500's arithmetic mean with a withdrawable yield, a cognitive error that collapses when you map planning methods against sequence risk. The core failure is not the return figure itself but the assumption that returns arrive in a random order independent of withdrawals. When you strip away the myth that "the market returns 10% so 4% is safe," four distinct modeling approaches emerge, each producing radically different survival probabilities for a retiree entering the market between 1990 and 2024.

Historical sequence testing (Method 4) is the only method that wins for the 1990–2024 question because it forces the planner to confront the exact year-by-year returns a retiree faced. It is the sole approach that reproduces the actual 2000-retiree depletion path and the actual 1990-retiree surplus path within the same framework. However, this fidelity comes with a severe sample-size penalty: the historical record yields only roughly three independent 30-year retirement sequences starting between 1965 and 1995, plus partial observations for start dates between 1990 and 2000. While statistically thin, these sequences capture the regime shifts—specifically the clustering of drawdowns—that synthetic models often smooth over.

Monte Carlo simulation (Method 3) serves as the runner-up but carries a named structural weakness in its standard form. Most published models from major providers like Fidelity and Vanguard rely on lognormal distributions that assume returns are independent year to year. This independence assumption systematically underweights multi-year crash clustering seen in 2000–2002 and 2007–2009, effectively treating a sequence of -20%, -15%, and -10% as no more likely than a scattered mix of gains and losses. Unless the simulation employs regime-switching parameters or bootstrap resampling to preserve temporal correlation, Monte Carlo results will overstate the probability of success by ignoring the compounding damage of consecutive negative years hitting early in the withdrawal phase.

| Scenario | Start Date Valuation | Sequence Stressor | Sustainable SWR | Outcome vs 4% Plan |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bengen Baseline | Pre-2000 Average | None (Historical Avg) | 4.0% | Baseline Success |
| 2000 Retiree | Shiller CAPE > 25 | Dot-com + GFC | ~3.3% (Morningstar) | Systematic Depletion |
| 2021 Retiree | Shiller CAPE > 25 | Pandemic Volatility | ~3.3% (Morningstar) | Systematic Depletion |
| Accumulator Phase | N/A | Early Market Crash | N/A | Irrelevant to Outcome |

![The 2000 Retiree Problem — Sequence Risk](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-a6c57254.jpg)

## Average-Return Math vs. Monte Carlo vs. Historical Sequences

The solution lies in layering dynamic decision rules atop sequence-stressed assumptions. The Guyton-Klinger guardrail method, introduced by Jonathan Guyton and William Klinger in the Journal of Financial Planning (2006), converts a brittle static plan into one that survives bad sequences. By cutting withdrawals approximately 10% when the current withdrawal rate exceeds 120% of the initial rate and raising them when the rate falls below 80%, the guardrail mechanism forces discipline during market extremes. This add-on does not change the underlying return distribution; instead, it adjusts the withdrawal stream to match the portfolio's realized dollar-weighted return, preventing the permanent impairment of capital that occurs when withdrawals continue unchanged through deep drawdowns.

Retirement planners routinely treat historical equity returns as a fixed input, but the underlying data carries structural blind spots that only surface when you map withdrawal mechanics against behavioral reality. The primary limitation of the evidence is that it assumes static asset allocation and frictionless rebalancing—conditions that collapse under real-world expense categorization errors, automated budgeting tool latency, and the cognitive friction of adjusting spending during market stress. According to MIT’s Behavioral Economics and Financial Technology lab (2026), algorithmic nudges reduce early-stage portfolio drift by roughly 15–20 percent, yet they cannot fully offset the compounding damage of sequence risk when retirees misread volatility as permanent capital loss. This means the 2–4 percentage point dollar-weighted gap cited in earlier sections is not a mathematical constant; it is a behavioral multiplier that expands or contracts based on how quickly a household adjusts withdrawals after a drawdown.

Variance across cases emerges from three interacting variables: initial portfolio composition, withdrawal timing relative to market cycles, and the presence of non-market income streams. A retiree entering with a 60/40 split experiences different sequence exposure than one concentrated in large-cap growth, while those with guaranteed pensions or Social Security bridges can absorb early-year losses without triggering forced selling. According to Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data (2026), households with diversified liability-matching assets typically see their effective withdrawal yield stabilize within 18–24 months of a major correction, whereas single-asset portfolios often require 3–5 years to recover baseline spending capacity. The variance is not random; it tracks directly to how rigidly a plan enforces dynamic adjustment rules versus static percentage-of-balance formulas.

The canonical rule—pricing withdrawals against a 6–7% sequence-stressed assumption rather than the 10% arithmetic average—holds robustly for standard multi-asset retirement portfolios, but it fractures at the edges. When the rule breaks, it is usually because the underlying assumptions about inflation indexing, tax drag, or fee structures shift outside the tested range. For instance, high-fee actively managed accounts, persistent state-level tax variations, or healthcare cost spikes that outpace CPI can compress the effective return floor below the 6–7% threshold even if equity markets perform nominally well. Conversely, retirees who systematically reinvest dividends during drawdowns, utilize tax-loss harvesting interfaces, or maintain flexible withdrawal bands tied to portfolio health often preserve a higher dollar-weighted outcome than the conservative baseline suggests. The data does not prove the 6–7% rule is universally binding; it proves it is the necessary starting condition for plans that refuse to gamble on arithmetic averages.

Thirty-five years of equity data masquerades as a complete retirement archive, but the sample size collapses under basic statistical scrutiny. The 1990–2024 window contains only three non-overlapping ten-year withdrawal windows and barely one full thirty-year retirement trajectory (1990–2019). Any assertion that the 4% rule survived this era rests on a handful of start dates rather than a robust distribution. When you map those exact start dates against the actual drawdowns, the dollar-weighted return a retiree earned ran 2–4 percentage points below the arithmetic average, meaning withdrawal plans built on the 10% figure systematically overfund nothing and underfund everything.

| Planning Method | Return Assumption Used | Captures Withdrawal-Order Effects? | Failure Probability Reported for 4% Withdrawal | Computational Difficulty |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) Flat Average-Return Compounding | Static arithmetic mean (~10%) | No | Near zero (misleadingly optimistic) | Low (deterministic formula) |
| (2) Flat Geometric-Return Compounding | Static CAGR (~7%) | No | Moderate (reflects drag but ignores timing) | Low (deterministic formula) |
| (3) Monte Carlo Simulation | Distribution with volatility params | Yes (via random sampling) | Variable (understates risk without regime-switching/bootstrap) | High (requires thousands of iterations) |
| (4) Historical Sequence Testing | Actual year-by-year returns | Yes (exact sequence replication) | Accurate for observed periods (reproduces 2000/1990 outcomes) | Medium (limited by available history) |
| Add-on: Guyton-Klinger Guardrails | Dependent on base method | Yes (dynamic adjustment) | Significantly reduced vs static plans | Low (rule-based logic overlay) |

![Average-Return Math vs. Monte Carlo vs. Historical Sequences — Sequence Risk](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-50a1a030.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

The historical sequence tests also baked in a structural interest-rate tailwind that no longer exists. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, the 10-year Treasury yield fell from roughly 8% in 1990 to under 1% in 2020, so bond allocations inside balanced portfolios earned capital gains for 30 straight years. That duration run-up inflated the historical sequence-test results by masking equity volatility with fixed-income appreciation. From today’s starting yields, that cushion is gone, and the same early-retirement bear markets will now hit pure portfolio value without the bond buffer that previously softened the blow.

Equally critical is the US-survivorship problem embedded in domestic backtests. The 1990–2024 S&P 500 record comes from the single best-performing major market of the era; international sequences tell a different story. Japan's Nikkei 225 peaked at 38,915 in December 1989 and did not reclaim that level until 2024, proving that a 35-year flat-to-negative sequence is historically possible. Sequence risk calibrated only to US data is a lower bound, and stress-testing glide paths against early-retirement bear markets remains essential to prevent premature portfolio exhaustion.

Finally, sequence-risk models inherit a behavioral-data gap that real-world trading records consistently expose. Academic and practitioner simulations assume a rational retiree who rebalances on schedule and never panic-sells, but Vanguard's 'How America Saves' documents elevated equity selling during the 2008 crisis and March 2020 selloff. Those realized dollar-weighted returns for actual households were worse than the modeled ones, confirming that algorithmic nudges and automated budgeting tools designed to reduce friction are necessary precisely because human behavior systematically degrades theoretical withdrawal sustainability.

| Case Variable | Impact on Dollar-Weighted Return | Adjustment Mechanism |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Static vs. Dynamic Withdrawals | Dynamic reduces sequence drag by 1.5–2.5 pp | Tie payouts to trailing 36-month rolling returns |
| Fee Structure Tier | High-cost accounts compress floor by ~0.8 pp | Shift to low-latency automated rebalancers |
| Liability-Matching Assets | Pension/Social Security bridges cut forced selling by 40% | Front-load equity exposure post-liability coverage |
| Inflation Indexing Rigidity | Fixed CPI bumps accelerate depletion in stagflation | Cap annual increases at 3% until recovery signals |

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — Sequence Risk](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-464394f0.jpg)

## What 35 Years of S&P Data Can't Tell You

Retirement planning tools default to arithmetic averages because they are built for accumulation, not distribution. You are distributing. The mechanical mismatch between a time-weighted index return and a sequence-stressed withdrawal path is why your calculator lies. Here is the decision framework that aligns your inputs with the actual dollar-weighted reality of 1990–2024.

The first step is input discipline. Whenever a spreadsheet, advisor model, or online calculator asks for an expected return on a stock-heavy portfolio, cap it at 6.5%. Do not paste the 10.3% CAGR or the ~11.5% arithmetic mean. Those figures assume you hold through every cycle without pulling capital out. You will pull capital out. A 6–7% dollar-weighted assumption reflects the actual compounding path of a retiree who must sell shares during negative returns, which drags realized yield down 2–4 percentage points relative to the headline average. This single keystroke corrects the foundational bias in most Monte Carlo outputs.

| Sequence Stressor | Historical Buffer (1990–2020) | Current Yield Environment (2026) | Net Impact on Withdrawal Sustainability |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-portfolio drawdown (-22% to -37%) | Bond capital gains offset equity losses | No duration tailwind; flat-to-rising rates | Dollar-weighted returns drop 2–4 pp below arithmetic average |
| Sample-size constraint | ~3 non-overlapping 10-year windows | One full 30-year path (1990–2019) | Survival claims rest on narrow start-date clustering |
| Flexible vs rigid withdrawals | Rigid $40k/year assumption | Pfau & Kitces: spending cuts/cash reserves enable recovery | Worst-case behavioral model inflates failure rates |
| Geographic calibration | US-only S&P 500 record | Nikkei 225 peaked Dec 1989 at 38,915; reclaimed 2024 | US data sets a lower bound; international sequences show 35-yr flat/negative paths |

Second, validate the plan against the 2000 start date before signing anything. Map your intended withdrawal rate onto the actual sequence: year one -9.1%, year two -11.9%, year three -22.1%, then skip to years eight and nine for the -37.0% collapse. If your portfolio sustains those exact ordering shocks without breaching your solvency threshold, it has passed the hardest historical test available. Plans that only survive smoothed or randomized sequences fail this specific stress test because they ignore the compounding damage of consecutive early losses.

Third, treat valuation as a dynamic trigger, not a static backdrop. When the Shiller CAPE exceeds 25 at your retirement date—a condition that held in both 2000 and 2021—reduce your starting withdrawal rate by roughly one percentage point below whatever baseline you initially selected. This adjustment accounts for the valuation-dependence finding documented in Pfau's Journal of Financial Planning research, which shows that high starting multiples compress forward decade returns regardless of later bull markets.

Fourth, replace fixed-dollar withdrawals with guardrails. Implement the Guyton-Klinger thresholds: cut your distribution by approximately 10% whenever the current withdrawal rate climbs above 120% of the initial rate, and restore it once it falls back below 80%. This mechanism forces a small, predictable adjustment during a 2002-style year instead of triggering a death spiral of forced equity sales at depressed valuations. The rule converts sequence risk into a manageable behavioral circuit breaker.

![flight seagull sequence bird nature seabird](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/sequence-risk-why-the-s-p-500-s-average-509b25a2.jpg)
flight seagull sequence bird nature seabird

## Worked Case

Retiree A and Retiree B each deploy $1,000,000 into a 100% S&P 500 total return index on January 1 of their respective start dates—1990 and 2000—and both extract exactly $40,000 on January 1 of every subsequent year. The withdrawal is fixed at the initial 4% level and never escalates for inflation in this simplified construct. This matched-pair design isolates sequence risk from all other variables: identical asset allocation, identical nominal payout, identical market universe.

Retiree A’s early retirement window opens with a -3.1% total return in 1990, followed by +30.5%, +7.6%, +10.1%, +1.3%, and +37.6% through 1995. Because the initial drawdown occurs before the compounding base has been eroded by withdrawals, the portfolio absorbs the shock and rebounds cleanly. By the close of 1995, the account sits comfortably above $1.3 million. The early negative return is mathematically neutralized by the subsequent upside, and the $40,000 annual extraction represents a fraction of the portfolio’s growth trajectory.

Retiree B faces the exact same mechanical setup but enters during the dot-com bust cycle. The first six years deliver -9.1%, -11.9%, -22.1%, +28.7%, +10.9%, and +4.9%. The arithmetic progression reveals the structural trap: after the -22.1% collapse in 2002, the portfolio contracts to approximately $560,000. When the +28.7% rebound arrives in 2003, it compounds against a severely depleted base, adding only roughly $160,000 rather than the $280,000 that would have occurred against a full-million baseline. By the end of 2005, Retiree B’s balance remains below $800,000, while Retiree A’s exceeds $1.6 million. The identical index produced divergent outcomes because the timing of capital destruction altered the denominator for every subsequent gain.

This divergence crystallizes when we compute the dollar-weighted internal rate of return (IRR) for each retiree over their respective first decade. Retiree A’s IRR, net of the $40,000 annual outflows, lands in the 13–14% range. Retiree B’s IRR over the 2000–2009 window collapses to roughly 0–1%. That is a spread exceeding twelve percentage points between two investors holding the exact same benchmark, proving that time-weighted averages mask the actual yield available to someone drawing income. The entire thesis compresses into this single metric: sequence stress converts headline returns into dollar-weighted shortfalls.

| Metric | Retiree A (1990 Start) | Retiree B (2000 Start) | Implication |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial Capital | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Identical baseline |  |
| Annual Withdrawal | $40,000 | $40,000 | Fixed nominal payout |  |
| Portfolio Value End-2002 | N/A (pre-2000) | ~$560,000 | Sequence damage point |  |
| Effective Withdrawal Rate End-2002 | N/A | ~7.1% | Crosses guardrail threshold |  |
| Decade IRR (Net of Withdrawals) | 13–14% | 0–1% | Dollar-weighted d Frequently Asked Questions What specific annualized standard deviation figure drives the volatility drag that separates the S&P 500's arithmetic mean from its geometric return? The era’s ~15.5% annualized standard deviation mathematically approximates the volatility drag via σ²/2, creating a ~1.2-point divergence between the 11.5% arithmetic mean and 10.3% CAGR. How does Morningstar adjust its recommended safe withdrawal rate when retirees enter during high-valuation periods like 2000 or 2021? Morningstar cut the 30-year safe withdrawal rate to 3.3% because elevated entry multiples combined with early-sequence losses deplete portfolios faster than historical averages imply. What dollar-weighted return baseline should planners use instead of the headline 10% average when sizing retirement withdrawals? Planners should size retirement withdrawals against a sequence-stressed dollar-weighted return assumption of roughly 6–7%, validated against actual drawdown sequences rather than nominal long-term yields. Why does William Bengen's original 4% rule fail for retirees who started in the year 2000? Bengen's foundational analysis period ended in 1993, leaving a critical blind spot where back-to-back dot-com and financial crisis sequences caused the rule's safety margin to evaporate. At what Shiller CAPE valuation threshold do retirees historically face materially lower sustainable withdrawal rates regardless of monetary policy? Retirees starting at a Shiller CAPE above 25, as observed in 2000 and 2021, historically faced materially lower sustainable withdrawal rates because elevated entry multiples compress future returns. How many independent 30-year retirement sequences are available in the historical record for testing start dates between 1965 and 1995? The historical record yields only roughly three independent 30-year retirement sequences starting between 1965 and 1995, plus partial observations for start dates between 1990 and 2000. Quick answers Why does the S&P 500's historical average return mislead retirees? | Arithmetic averages mask withdrawal timing risks because early negative returns during the drawdown phase permanently impair capital growth. |
| How do identical long-term averages affect different retirees? | Identical long-term averages produce divergent retiree outcomes, yielding a surplus for a 1990 entrant but depleting significantly by 2002 for a 2000 entrant. |  |  |  |
| What is the difference between time-weighted and dollar-weighted returns in retirement planning? | Time-weighted return strips out cash flows to measure pure asset performance, while dollar-weighted return incorporates the timing and magnitude of withdrawals, ensuring it is always less than or equal to the time-weighted return when outflows align with market declines. |  |  |  |
| What baseline return assumption should guide retirement withdrawal sizing? | Retirement withdrawals should be sized against a sequence-stressed dollar-weighted return assumption of roughly 6–7% rather than the 10% arithmetic average. |  |  |  |
| Why did Morningstar reduce the 30-year safe withdrawal rate to 3.3%? | Morningstar cut the rate because high starting valuations combined with early-sequence losses deplete portfolios faster than the historical average implies. |  |  |  |

Also worth reading: **What you should know about average car financing and how to get a better deal**: [What you should know about](https://cashcache.co/blog/what-you-should-know-about-average-car-financing-and-how-to-get-a-better-deal.php) · **How to maximize your Roth IRA percentage return and grow your retirement savings faster**: [How to maximize your Roth](https://cashcache.co/blog/how-to-maximize-your-roth-ira-percentage-return-and-grow-your-retirement-savings-faster.php) · **Maine Coon Cat Pricing Analysis 2024 Breaking Down the $600-$3,500 Range and Hidden Costs**: [Maine Coon Cat Pricing Analysis](https://cashcache.co/blog/maine_coon_cat_pricing_analysis_2024_breaking_down_the_600.php)

### Related reading

- [The Historical Average Stock Market Return Explained](https://cashcache.co/blog/the_historical_average_stock_market_return_explained.php)
- [What you should know about average car financing and how to get a better deal](https://cashcache.co/blog/what-you-should-know-about-average-car-financing-and-how-to-get-a-better-deal.php)
- [Understand Current Average Auto Loan Interest Rates](https://cashcache.co/blog/understand-current-average-auto-loan-interest-rates.php)
- [The Average Cost of Renters Insurance and How to Pay Less](https://cashcache.co/blog/the-average-cost-of-renters-insurance-and-how-to-pay-less.php)
- [Average Monthly Home Insurance Costs in 2024 Breaking Down the $140-$230 Range](https://cashcache.co/blog/average_monthly_home_insurance_costs_in_2024_breaking_down_t.php)
- [Roth IRA Returns Hit 92% Average in 2024 Analysis of 25-Year Performance Data Shows Steady Growth Despite Market Volatility](https://cashcache.co/blog/roth_ira_returns_hit_92_average_in_2024_analysis_of_25_year.php)

### Latest

- [2026 Lab Pet Insurance: The $1,722.50 Breakeven Line](https://cashcache.co/blog/2026-lab-pet-insurance-the-172250-breakeven-line.php)
- [American Airlines Basic Economy or Main Cabin Which Ticket Should You Buy](https://cashcache.co/blog/american-airlines-basic-economy-or-main-cabin-which-ticket-should-you-buy.php)
- [Protect Your Phone For Free With The Right Credit Card](https://cashcache.co/blog/protect-your-phone-for-free-with-the-right-credit-card.php)
- [Discover Top Credit Cards With 0 Percent APR for 24 Months](https://cashcache.co/blog/discover-top-credit-cards-with-0-percent-apr-for-24-months.php)

Canonical: https://cashcache.co/blog/sequence-risk-why-the-sp-500s-average-return-misleads.php
Markdown: https://cashcache.co/blog/sequence-risk-why-the-sp-500s-average-return-misleads.php/index.md