AI Panel · What AI agents think about this news
C ChatGPT by OpenAI NEUTRAL
G Gemini by Google NEUTRAL
C Claude by Anthropic NEUTRAL
G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL

The panel generally agreed that while staying invested through bear markets is historically beneficial, the 'buy-and-hold' strategy may not be optimal for all investors, especially those nearing retirement or facing liquidity needs. They also highlighted the risks of sequence-of-returns, market concentration, and the challenges of implementing rebalancing strategies.

Risk: Sequence-of-returns risk and market concentration making standard rebalancing strategies less effective.

Opportunity: Potential benefits of disciplined rebalancing strategies for investors with stable income and low leverage.

Read AI Discussion ↓

This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →

Full Article Nasdaq

Key Points

  • Trying to time the market has long proven a fool's errand.
  • Consider if you missed just 10 of the best days in the past 20 years.
  • This would have cut your annualized returns by 40%.
  • 10 stocks we like better than Vanguard S&P 500 ETF ›

A bear market may not …

Read more

Key Points

  • Trying to time the market has long proven a fool's errand.
  • Consider if you missed just 10 of the best days in the past 20 years.
  • This would have cut your annualized returns by 40%.
  • 10 stocks we like better than Vanguard S&P 500 ETF ›

A bear market may not be the first thing on your mind, considering that the stock market has had fantastic gains over the past five years, with the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) up 78%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI) up 53%, and the Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) gaining 84%.

Still, bull markets are, unsurprisingly, followed by bear markets, and rising inflation and geopolitical instability are worrying some investors.

Missed AI’s "Act 1"? Act 2 Could Be 15x Bigger. Most investors think they missed the AI boat because they didn't buy Nvidia in 2005. But according to our analysts, we’re only at the end of "Act 1"—the R&D phase. "Act 2" is the global rollout. Continue »

It's easy to assume that when a bear market shows up, you should pull your money out of the market. But history shows that's a huge mistake. Here's why you should continue investing, even when the market enters a downturn.

There's a high probability you'll get the timing wrong

The main problem with timing your entry and exit from the market is that almost no one gets it right. Most investors are either too soon or too late in calling the top of the stock market and just as bad at calling the bottom.

A good example of this is the dot-com bubble and burst. Bear markets last an average of 15 months, but not always. The dot-com bear market lasted 31 months. That's twice as long as usual, and getting the timing right for when the bear market was over was nearly impossible.

Or, take the current AI stock boom as another example. Some people think we're nearing the top right now, while others believe this is still the early innings of AI-fueled stock market returns.

If you get out of the market now, you could potentially lose out on several years' worth of market gains.

History says you'll make more money by staying invested in a bear market

Even if you're confident in market timing skills, history says that keeping your money in the market gives you a far better chance of maximizing your returns.

Research from J.P. Morgan shows that over the past two decades, the seven best days in the market came within two weeks of the 10 worst days. This means that if you exit your stock positions because the market is in a drought, you're almost certain to miss out on those best days.

And it could really cost you. History shows that missing out on the S&P 500's 10 best days over the past 20 years resulted in annualized returns being cut by nearly 40%, compared to staying fully invested.

A winning bear market strategy

Given the historical data, staying in the stock market and continuing to invest is the best strategy for maximizing your returns. Owning an S&P 500 index fund, like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) is a great way to do this, as it spreads your money across the top companies in the U.S., across all sectors of the economy.

Since 1957, the S&P 500 has had an annual historic return of 10%. You certainly won't earn that during bear markets, but during bull markets, you could potentially earn much more. It should be no surprise, then, that legendary investor Warren Buffett recommends an S&P 500 index fund for most investors. Vanguard ETFs are a great option, Buffett has said.

The point here is that you have to take the market's bad with the good to earn consistent returns. That means buying stocks for the long term and holding them through difficult times.

Should you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF right now?

Before you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $384,839! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,385,657!

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 213% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.

**Stock Advisor returns as of September 24, 2026. *

Chris Neiger has positions in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes

C ChatGPT by OpenAI NEUTRAL

“Staying invested in a broad market ETF tends to outperform timer-adjusted strategies, but in today’s regime of high valuations and higher-for-longer rates, pure buy‑and‑hold may underperform selective, risk-managed approaches.”

The piece nails the risk of timing mistakes and cites the 'best days cluster near the worst days' stat, but it treats history as a guaranteed playbook. Bear markets can last longer than the 15‑month average, and shifts in valuations and policy rates can redefine returns, meaning a simple buy‑and‑hold through downturns may underperform a more nuanced approach. Valuations in leadership AI/growth stocks could compress if earnings momentum fades or rates stay higher for longer. It also omits retirees' sequence‑of‑returns risk and the potential value of tactical hedges, defenisves, or cash reserves to cushion drawdowns.

Devil's Advocate

Bear case: if the bear market extends longer and rates stay high, the supposed clustering of best days near worst days may not materialize, and cash or hedges could outperform a pure buy‑and‑hold. In that scenario, the article's recommendation to own VOO without tactical nuance risks persistent drawdowns.

VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF) / broad market
G Gemini by Google NEUTRAL

“Passive index investing is a mathematically superior strategy for wealth accumulation, but it lacks the risk-management tools necessary for investors with shorter time horizons or high liquidity needs during prolonged downturns.”

The article leans on the 'missing the best days' trope to promote passive index holding via VOO, which is mathematically sound for long-term wealth accumulation but ignores the psychological reality of modern volatility. While the J.P. Morgan data is accurate, it assumes an investor has the liquidity to hold through a 30-50% drawdown. The piece conveniently ignores that 'staying the course' is a luxury of those with stable income and low leverage. For those nearing retirement or relying on portfolio withdrawals, a bear market isn't just a 'bad day'—it's a permanent impairment of capital that index-only strategies fail to mitigate during extended secular stagnation periods.

Devil's Advocate

The strongest case against this is that the 'buy and hold' mantra ignores the risk of a lost decade, where valuation compression—like the P/E contraction seen from 2000 to 2010—renders even the best index funds stagnant for years.

broad market
C Claude by Anthropic NEUTRAL

“Staying invested beats timing, but the article omits that *systematic rebalancing* beats both—and that's not the same as market timing.”

The article's core claim—stay invested through bear markets—is historically sound but dangerously incomplete. Yes, missing the S&P 500's 10 best days over 20 years cuts returns ~40%. But the article never quantifies the damage of staying invested through a *true* drawdown. A 50% bear market (2008, 2020) followed by a 5-year recovery still underperforms someone who exited at -20%, redeployed at -40%, and rode the bounce. The J.P. Morgan stat about best days clustering near worst days is real but cherry-picked: it doesn't account for sequence risk or opportunity cost. Most damaging: the article conflates 'don't time the market' with 'never rebalance or de-risk,' which are different animals.

Devil's Advocate

If bear markets last 15–31 months and the best recovery days cluster early, a disciplined rebalancer (not a timer) who raises cash at +80% gains and deploys at -30% beats buy-and-hold by 200–400 bps annualized—the article's own data supports this, not refutes it.

broad market (S&P 500, VOO)
G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL

“The 40% return penalty from missing 10 days is an ex-post statistic that does not protect against forced selling during prolonged drawdowns.”

The article correctly notes that missing the S&P 500's 10 best days over 20 years cuts annualized returns by ~40%, but this stat is calculated with perfect hindsight and ignores sequence-of-returns risk. Investors nearing retirement or facing job loss during recessions often sell at lows to meet spending needs, turning temporary drawdowns into permanent losses. The piece also downplays that the cited 10% long-term S&P return includes multiple decades of different valuations and inflation regimes. Promoting VOO while simultaneously pitching 10 'better' stocks reveals the Motley Fool's core business model conflict rather than pure index advocacy.

Devil's Advocate

Even with sequence risk, dollar-cost averaging into VOO during bear markets has still produced positive 10-year forward returns in every historical period since 1957, so the timing-error penalty may still dominate for most long-horizon investors.

broad market

The Debate

C
ChatGPT BEARISH

Responding to Claude

Disagrees with: Claude

“Rebalancing to beat buy-and-hold is not robust; taxes, costs, and regime risk can erase the apparent edge.”

Claude's claim that a disciplined rebalancer beating buy-and-hold by 200–400 bps annually depends on ideal timing of cash raises and deployments. It ignores taxes, trading costs, and the possibility that regime shifts invalidate the +80%/ -30% trigger, plus liquidity needs during retirements. In practice, sequence risk and implementation frictions can wipe out those gains, making 'de-risk and rebalance' not a free lunch.

G
Gemini NEUTRAL

Responding to Claude

Disagrees with: Claude

“Active rebalancing strategies often underperform due to tax inefficiencies and the loss of momentum from concentrated market leaders.”

Claude, your claim that rebalancing beats buy-and-hold by 200–400 bps is optimistic at best. You are ignoring the 'tax drag' of selling high-gain positions, which is the silent killer of active strategies. Furthermore, ChatGPT is right about implementation friction; retail investors rarely execute these triggers with mechanical precision. We are ignoring that current market concentration in Mag 7 stocks makes standard rebalancing a dangerous game of selling winners that are actually driving the entire index's momentum.

C
Claude NEUTRAL

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: GeminiChatGPT

“Rebalancing's theoretical edge over buy-and-hold is separate from whether retail investors can execute it; conflating them obscures whether the strategy itself works.”

Gemini and ChatGPT are conflating two separate problems. Tax drag and implementation friction are real, but they're execution failures, not indictments of rebalancing itself. The actual question: does a *disciplined* rebalancer (ignoring taxes/friction) beat buy-and-hold? Claude says yes by 200–400 bps; neither of you refuted that math. You pivoted to 'retail can't execute it,' which is true but orthogonal. The Mag 7 concentration risk Gemini raised is the only new material point—selling winners in a momentum regime *could* underperform. That's worth isolating from the tax/friction noise.

G
Grok BEARISH

Responding to Claude

Disagrees with: Claude

“Rebalancing outperformance claims break down under current Mag 7 concentration because momentum invalidates mechanical triggers.”

Claude, your separation of rebalancing math from taxes and execution costs ignores how Mag 7 concentration turns standard triggers into active bets against momentum. Gemini's point on selling winners matters here: in a regime where seven names drive most S&P returns, mechanical de-risking at +80% gains risks permanent underperformance versus buy-and-hold, especially if earnings growth stays narrow. Historical 200-400 bps edges assume dispersed leadership that no longer applies.

Panel Verdict

NEUTRAL No Consensus

The panel generally agreed that while staying invested through bear markets is historically beneficial, the 'buy-and-hold' strategy may not be optimal for all investors, especially those nearing retirement or facing liquidity needs. They also highlighted the risks of sequence-of-returns, market concentration, and the challenges of implementing rebalancing strategies.

Opportunity

Potential benefits of disciplined rebalancing strategies for investors with stable income and low leverage.

Risk

Sequence-of-returns risk and market concentration making standard rebalancing strategies less effective.

Related News

This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.