Two people retire on the same day with the same $1 million, hold the same investments, and follow the same plan to withdraw $70,000 a year. Twenty years later one of them has run out of money and the other has more than $1.5 million left. Their portfolios earned the exact same set of yearly returns. The only thing that differed was the order those returns showed up in.
That gap is sequence of returns risk: the danger that a run of weak returns early in retirement does damage the good years afterward cannot undo. This explains why the order of your returns matters once you start withdrawing, shows the effect in a single chart, and lays out what you can do to soften it.
While you are still saving, the order of returns barely matters. You are adding money, not taking it out, so a bad year early followed by a good year late produces the same ending balance as the reverse. What carries you is the average return compounded over time. Two savers who experience the same returns in a different order finish in the same place.
Withdrawals break that symmetry. When you sell shares in a down market to cover your spending, those shares are gone for good. They are not around to participate in the recovery that follows. A loss in the first year of retirement is therefore permanent in a way the identical loss in your final year is not, because the early loss compounds against a balance you keep drawing down. The average return over your retirement can be perfectly healthy and you can still run out, if the worst years land first.
The core idea: While you are saving, only the average return matters. Once you are withdrawing, the order matters too, because money pulled out during a downturn locks in the loss and never gets to rebound.
The cleanest way to see the effect is to hold everything constant except the order. Take a single 20-year stream of returns that averages about 7.4% a year, give it to two retirees, and reverse the order for the second one. Both start with $1 million and withdraw a fixed $70,000 every year. Saver A meets three down years right at the start. Saver B meets those same three down years at the very end.
Follow Saver A down the red line. The portfolio drops in the first three years while $70,000 still comes out each year to fund spending. By the time the strong returns finally arrive, there is very little left for them to act on. Compounding needs a balance to compound. Saver A keeps selling shares at depressed prices to make each withdrawal, so the eventual rebound lifts a portfolio that has already been hollowed out. The money is gone in year 11.
Saver B runs the same gauntlet in reverse. The early good years grow the balance well above its starting point before any spending pressure bites, so when the same three bad years finally hit near the end, they land on a much larger cushion and on far fewer remaining years of withdrawals. Identical returns, identical withdrawals, opposite outcome. That is the whole of sequence of returns risk in one picture.
Sequence risk is not spread evenly across retirement. It concentrates in a window of roughly five to ten years on either side of your retirement date, when your portfolio is at its largest and you are either about to start or have just started drawing on it. A 30% drop in that window forces selling at exactly the wrong time. The same 30% drop fifteen years later, against a smaller balance and fewer remaining years, does far less harm.
This is why two retirees with the same long-run average return, the same savings, and the same withdrawal rate can end up in completely different places. Averages hide the timing. A plan that looks fine on a spreadsheet using one fixed return assumption can still fail if the bad years happen to fall in that danger zone, which a single average return can never show you.
You cannot control the order the market hands you, but several well-understood levers reduce how much that order can hurt you. Mitigating sequence of return risk comes down to not being forced to sell into a downturn. Each of these buys you that freedom in a different way, and you rarely need all of them.
None of these predicts the market. They change what a bad early sequence can do to you, which is the part you can actually plan around.
A single average return cannot reveal sequence risk, because the whole problem is about order. This is exactly what a Monte Carlo simulation is built to test. In effect, it works as a sequence of returns risk calculator: instead of running your plan once against an average, it replays it against hundreds or thousands of different return orderings and counts how often the money lasts. Some of those orderings hand you a brutal first few years, the same scenario that sank Saver A, and the result tells you how many of them your plan survives.
That share of surviving runs is your success rate. A plan that holds up across most reshuffled sequences has real margin against bad timing; one that fails often is leaning on good luck in the order of returns. Our Monte Carlo explainer walks through how those orderings are generated, and the guide to interpreting your results covers what the resulting score does and does not tell you.
Sequence of returns risk is the reason two retirements with the same average return can end so differently: once you are withdrawing, the order of returns matters as much as their size, and the years right around your retirement date carry the most weight. You cannot choose that order, but you can build in flexibility, a cash buffer, and guaranteed income so a rough start does not become a permanent one. Run your own numbers through a Monte Carlo simulation to see how your plan holds up when the bad years come first instead of last.
RetirFi reshuffles your returns across thousands of orderings, so you can see how sequence of returns risk hits your timeline and which adjustments protect you.
Run the Calculator →