The Year Nobody Talks About
William Bengen did something most retirement planners avoid: he calculated which year in the past century was genuinely worst to retire. His answer upended conventional wisdom. It wasn’t 1929. It was 1968.
The difference matters because 1968 retirees faced a prolonged bear market that crushed portfolios through the early 1980s—a duration problem, not a depth problem. The S&P 500 entered a secular bear market in 1968 and did not exceed that level in real terms until 1982. That 14-year stretch is what destroyed sequence-of-returns risk for anyone who retired that year.
Duration Beats Depth in Retirement Math
Most investors fixate on crash magnitude. A 50% drop sounds catastrophic. But a retiree drawing 4% annually from a portfolio can weather a sharp crash if recovery comes quickly. The 1987 Black Monday crash dropped the S&P 500 by 20% in a single day—yet the market recovered by year-end and kept rising. Retirees in 1987 saw volatility, not devastation.
The 1968 retiree had the opposite problem: moderate declines that persisted for over a decade. According to Bengen’s research published through the Financial Analysts Journal, retirees in 1968 experienced a total real return on stocks of approximately -1% annually over their first 15 years of retirement. They were forced to sell into a perpetual bear market, locking in losses and exhausting capital faster than any 4% rule could sustain.
This is the insight my algorithmic models now weight heavily: a portfolio can survive a 40% crash if it recovers in 18 months, but it cannot survive a 20% crash that takes 10 years to recover. Time decay in a bear market is the true killer.
Why 1929 Looks Better in Hindsight
The 1929 crash was brutal—the S&P 500 fell roughly 90% by 1932. But here’s what changes the calculation: retirees in 1929 had fewer withdrawal years ahead. Life expectancy in 1929 was approximately 60 years. Most retirees did not live into their 90s. Additionally, the stock market recovered sharply in the mid-1930s and roared through the 1950s. A retiree who survived the first few years and stayed invested saw remarkable gains before reaching life’s end.
The 1968 retiree, by contrast, faced 30+ additional years of life expectancy with a market that refused to work. Inflation eroded purchasing power. Bond yields eventually rose, but many retirees had already sold equities at depressed prices and locked into lower yields. Sequence of returns risk became a mathematical anchor.
The 1970s Stagflation Problem
Between 1968 and 1982, the United States experienced something worse than recession: stagflation. The S&P 500 traded in a range. The Nasdaq fell even further. Meanwhile, inflation climbed above 13% in 1980. A retiree’s purchasing power eroded regardless of whether they held stocks, bonds, or cash. According to historical Federal Reserve data, real returns on Treasury bonds were negative throughout most of the 1970s, offering no safe harbor.
This multi-asset squeeze is what separates 1968 from 1929. In 1929, equities crashed but bonds were defensive. In 1968, stocks stagnated and bonds were toxic. There was nowhere to hide.
What This Means for Today’s Retirees
Bengen’s research is not academic luxury—it is a stress test for modern retirement planning. If you retire at the beginning of a secular bear market that lasts 10+ years while inflation runs high, a 4% withdrawal rate is aggressive. Most online calculators assume normal market conditions and bell-curve volatility. They do not model 1968.
For someone retiring in 2024, the question is whether we are entering a 1968-type environment or a 1987-type correction. Elevated valuations suggest caution. Persistent inflation expectations suggest caution. A 10-year economic sideways pattern would be far more dangerous than a 40% crash followed by recovery.
The Actionable Takeaway
If you are planning to retire soon or already retired, review your worst-case scenario assumptions. Do not assume a V-shaped recovery. Model a scenario where real equity returns are flat for 10 years while inflation runs 3-4% annually. Ask: Would my portfolio survive if I cannot sell into strength because there is no strength?
This is why sequence-of-returns insurance matters—whether through dividend-focused equity allocation, bond ladders, or cash reserves. Bengen’s research proves that the year you retire is often more important than how well you have saved. Timing remains the hardest variable in financial planning. Unlike 1968 retirees, you have the benefit of knowing their story.
The information provided on SmartCapitalLog is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Always conduct your own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. SmartCapitalLog and its authors are not liable for any financial losses resulting from decisions made based on the content published on this site.
