Why Bonds Matter

Adam M. Grossman · Oct 3, 2026 · 3 replies

RECENTLY, A READER—let’s call him Tom—posed this question: If stocks historically have delivered far better returns than bonds, then why should an investor own any bonds at all? Even with the stock market’s unpredictable ups and downs, wouldn’t you end up way ahead by betting only on stocks over the long term?

It’s a fair question. Over the past 100 years, stocks have delivered returns of roughly 10% per year, while bonds have returned just 5%. More recently, that gap has been even wider. Between 2016 and 2025, the S&P 500 gained nearly 15% per year, on average, while bonds gained less than 2%. And as we’ve experienced in recent years, bonds aren’t without risk, so why not just go all in with a 100% stock portfolio?

The most common answer to this question involves a phenomenon known as sequence-of-returns risk. That’s the risk posed to retirees by an unpredictable stock market. Suppose, for example, you retire on a Friday, and stocks drop the following Monday. This would, of course, be unnerving, but it could become a real problem if you’re forced to sell stocks while they’re depressed. Too many forced sales can cause a portfolio to deplete too quickly.

Tom, the reader who posed this question, is an experienced investor and well aware of sequence-of-returns risk. His view, though, is that it’s a fear that’s overblown. Even if stocks drop from time to time, he argued, the impact should be modest. That’s because the loss an investor actually experiences in any given year would be limited by the amount withdrawn in that year.

Suppose, for example, a retiree is taking withdrawals at a 4% annual rate. Even if the market were to drop 50%, that 50% loss would only be applied to the 4% withdrawal, resulting in a loss of just 2%. And since the stock market has delivered such superior performance overall, Tom asked, shouldn’t that more than offset single-digit losses like this, especially if they occur only every once in a while?

It was a good question, so I ran the numbers, starting with a period that was particularly punishing for stock market investors: In 2000, the U.S. market dropped 9%. In 2001, it dropped a further 12%, and in 2002, it dropped yet another 22%.

What would’ve happened if you’d retired at the beginning of 2000 with an all-stock portfolio and started taking withdrawals at a rate of 4% per year? In that case, the funds would have run down nearly to zero within 25 years. And if the withdrawal rate had been even just a little higher—4.5% instead of 4%—the funds would’ve been fully depleted within 20 years.

Does that mean Tom’s 100%-stock strategy would be inadvisable? The answer is nuanced. Here are some key points to consider:

First, it’s important to recognize that a retirement in 2000 was close to a worst-case scenario. Looking at retirement dates over the past 100 years, there were just two other cases in which a portfolio would have deteriorated so quickly over the course of a 25-year retirement. The first, not surprisingly, was 1929. The second was 1969, just before the malaise of the 1970s, when market returns stagnated while inflation accelerated.

Aside from those limited cases, an all-stock portfolio would have been a winning strategy in nearly every other time period. In 91% of rolling 25-year periods between 1926 and 2025, a retiree would’ve ended up with more money after 25 years of withdrawals than on the first day of retirement. In about half of 25-year periods, the amount of money in the bank after 25 years would have been five times more than at the beginning of the period.

Tom’s all-stock strategy, in other words, would have been the right choice in nearly every case over the past 100 years. Still, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone approaching retirement, for these five reasons.

First, and probably most important, is the fact that we each have only one chance at retirement. If we happen to end up with an unlucky sequence like in 1929, 1969 or 2000, it would be cold comfort to know that we were simply unlucky. As Bill Bernstein likes to point out, the odds of losing at Russian roulette are just one-in-six, but it goes without saying that still none of us would take that risk. Similarly, we can’t know what the future holds, so that’s why I’d recommend an asset allocation that, statistically speaking, might be more conservative than necessary.

Another reality is that history is an imperfect guide to the future. In the past, there have been just three very tough periods for new retirees, but there’s no guarantee what path the market will follow in the future. Look no further than Japan, which only recently emerged from a 34-year bear market.

Another risk is inflation, which was a key reason why the late-1960s were such a difficult time to retire. The government’s difficulty in reining in inflation since the pandemic is a reminder of this risk.

Another consideration: I assumed in my simulation that a retiree’s portfolio withdrawals would follow the popular 4% rule, starting at 4% in the first year of retirement, then increasing in lockstep with inflation. Those assumptions are useful for financial modeling but don’t reflect the way real people spend money, which varies much more from year to year. If I had assumed spending that was even modestly higher than 4%, the failure rate would have been much higher.

The last reason I’d be wary of an all-stock portfolio isn’t mathematical at all. It’s the reality that stock market declines can be enormously upsetting. So even if you can theoretically afford to take more risk, that doesn’t mean you’ll be happy when the market inevitably declines at some point—or at multiple points—during retirement.

A final note: So far, this discussion has been limited to retirees. If you’re early in your working years or building a portfolio for a young person, then sequence-of-returns risk should be much less of a concern, and a portfolio like Tom’s might make sense. In fact, if you’re more than 10 or so years away from needing to draw on your funds and have some dollars set aside for whatever might come up in the meantime, then in that case, I would absolutely consider an all-stock portfolio.

Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam’s Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.

Why Bonds Matter

More On This Topic