Investing & Risk · Retirement Planning
Volatility Is The Loud Risk.
The Quiet Ones Matter, Too.
There are other things that can also damage retirement plans, quietly and slowly.
By Todd Talbot, CFP®, Certified Tax Specialist™ · Red Mountain Financial · Birmingham, Alabama
In my experience, many people spend their financial lives managing the wrong risks. They watch markets go up and down, feel the fear, and build plans around avoiding that feeling. But volatility, on its own, is not the only risk that can damage retirement plans. Forced decisions made at the wrong moment, without the structure or flexibility to handle them, can be just as damaging. This article explains why, and what some of the key risks look like for someone trying to build a retirement designed to hold up under real-life pressure. Written by Todd Talbot, CFP®, a fee-based retirement planner in Birmingham, Alabama.
Volatility is not the enemy.
It feels like the enemy. It shows up on our screens, in headlines, in nervous phone calls. When markets drop, it can be difficult to ignore.
But feeling like a risk and being at risk may be different things.
Volatility, by itself, does not always permanently harm a retirement plan. Markets have always moved, both up and down. Broad market indices, independent of investor behavior, have historically recovered from drawdowns. Of course, past performance does not guarantee future results.
Other factors do the lasting damage.
Markets go up. Markets go down. That has always been true. The question is what you do when they go down.
ONE REAL PROBLEM
Forced Decisions at the Wrong Time.
Here are some ways I’ve seen some retirement plans fall apart.
Not because the market dropped. Because someone sold when it dropped. Because they pulled income from the wrong account at the worst moment. Because fear drove a decision that logic, with a little more time and flexibility, would never have made.
The market may have recovered. The decision did not.
This is the pattern I see more than any other. Not necessarily markets eating retirement savings. Decisions, made under stress, without a structure designed to handle pressure.
Volatility created the stress. But volatility was not the cause of the losses. The missing piece was a plan designed to help absorb a long bear market without forcing a bad choice.
WHY WE COULD GET THIS WRONG
Because Volatility Is Loud.
Fear is not irrational. When something drops 20%, 30%, or 40% in value, that is real money. It matters. The feeling it produces is normal.
The problem is that fear can be loud and risk is often quiet.
Volatility gets covered every hour on financial news. Talking heads debate where the market is going. Advisors who predict correctly get famous. The noise is constant.
Meanwhile, the risks that could quietly affect retirement plans don’t get as much coverage. Rising costs that can outpace income. Tax bills that compound over time. Accounts that grow slowly but create a bigger IRS liability every year. Liquidity problems that show up when life demands money at an inconvenient time.
Those risks are slow. They are boring. They do not make good television. That does not make them less risky.
Volatility is the loud risk. The quiet ones can compound as well.
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Is it Temporary Discomfort or Permanent Damage?
Not all financial pain is the same.
A portfolio that drops 25% and recovers over 18 months is uncomfortable. It is not, by itself, harmful to a 30-year retirement plan, unless that plan was built so that it could not absorb a rough stretch without damage.
Permanent damage looks different. For example, selling at the bottom and buying back at the top. It might look like pulling income from a growth account in a down year because there was no other place to go. It might look like making a long-term decision under short-term pressure.
The goal of a sound plan is not to eliminate the discomfort of volatility. It is to make sure that normal market movement never forces a permanent mistake.
A pattern I see — a hypothetical example
A physician had most of his savings in a single brokerage account. No real structure. No buckets. Everything in one place. His plan worked fine for years. Then a market correction hit right as he needed to pull funds for a property purchase. He sold at the bottom of the market because he had no other source. The recovery did not help him. The loss was already locked in. The market was not the sole problem. The structure was too.
That is what I mean by planning around behavior. Not predicting what the market might do. Building a structure where normal human reactions, fear, hesitation, impatience, do not accidentally become permanent financial mistakes.
WHAT GOOD PLANNING ACTUALLY DOES
It Reduces the Need to Make Decisions Under Pressure.
A well-built retirement plan has one significant job: make sure you never have to sell the wrong thing at the wrong time.
In the plans we build, the objective is that short-term income needs are covered separately from long-term growth positions. That means a market correction does not touch the money you are living on next year. That means you can watch a long downturn without feeling like you have to do something about it now.
Volatility only becomes a real risk when the plan has no margin for it. Build the margin, and volatility becomes what it always was: normal.
The real risks, the ones I watch carefully, are often slower and harder to see. Inflation eating purchasing power over 25 years. Tax drag compounding inside accounts that are never optimized. Accounts structured for accumulation being used for income without thinking through the sequence.
None of those show up on a ticker. None of them feel urgent in the moment. They just quietly work inside a plan that wasn’t truly designed to handle them.
THE BOTTOM LINE
If a Plan Rattles Every Time the Market Moves, It May Not Be Well Built.
Good planning does not ignore volatility. It builds around it. It’s designed to create enough flexibility that a bad year in the market is a bad year in the market, nothing more.
The clients who can comfortably ride out corrections are not necessarily the ones who predicted them. They are often the ones whose plans were structured so that a correction did not require a snap decision.
That is the goal. Not complete certainty. Not prediction. Durability.
If that is how you think about this, I am glad to help.
If it is not, that is fine too.