If $1.26 million was the fortune teller’s answer to retirement security, then the prediction may need revising.
Even Northwestern Mutual’s seven-figure starting point can seem like an illusion as some retirees still face the risk of depleting their savings by their 70s (1). They could also hit $0 years before their retirement ends, trapping them in an unwelcome final chapter.
Add to that the challenge of getting closer to that number is more of a crapshoot in your mid-60s. And the risk has nothing to do with discipline, spending habits or even debt. Instead, the real culprit is simply bad timing.
Here’s how you can avoid the risk of losing your robust nest egg.
Experiencing a major market correction can have a devastating and long-lasting effect on your retirement savings. According to the MIT Sloan School of Management, this is known as the sequence of return risk (2).
Consider the example of Ian, a 60-year-old with $1 million set up in investments. Ian’s assets are in stocks, and he plans to withdraw $60,000 a year. But his plans are about to be hampered by a severe economic downturn in his first two years.
Say the market drops 35% in the first year and another 25% in the second year. By withdrawing $60,000 in both years, Ian has overdrawn his savings. He is effectively selling stocks while they’re selling low. By the end of the second year, he is left with just $413,250 — less than half his initial wealth.
The market may recover to deliver a 7% to 8% annual return for the rest of Ian’s retirement, but he still ends up with $0 by age 71. His portfolio can’t sustain the $60,000 per year withdrawals after the first blow.
Read More: The average net worth of Americans is a surprising $620,654. But it almost means nothing. Here’s the number that counts (and how to make it skyrocket)
In retirement, the timing of market corrections matters far more than their size. A sharp decline is painful. But when it happens early in retirement, it can cause permanent damage.
It is more manageable later in retirement. If Ian experienced 35% and 25% drawdowns in his 70s, rather than in his late 60s, his portfolio would have benefited from several additional years of compound growth. Those earlier gains would have created a larger capital base, helping absorb part of the losses without immediately threatening his income.


