The panel generally agrees that while dollar-cost averaging (DCA) can be beneficial in long-term index investing, it may not be as effective in volatile markets or high-rate environments. They caution about liquidity risk, sequence risk, survivorship bias, and the potential for long-term capital stagnation in non-productive assets.
Risk: Liquidity risk and the potential for long-term capital stagnation in high-rate environments.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated.
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 →
Key Points
- Bear markets are rarely cheerful times for investors.
- That's largely a product of transient psychological factors rather than a lack of suitable long-term opportunities.
- Automation can be the difference between doing the right thing by default and retreating from the market at the wrong moment.
- 10 stocks we like better than SPDR S&P …
Read more
Key Points
- Bear markets are rarely cheerful times for investors.
- That's largely a product of transient psychological factors rather than a lack of suitable long-term opportunities.
- Automation can be the difference between doing the right thing by default and retreating from the market at the wrong moment.
- 10 stocks we like better than SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust ›
A bear market is traditionally defined as a decline of 20% or more in a broad market index that lasts at least two months, per the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A bull market is the same size move to the upside. Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is an easy way to appreciate these dynamics, with its price crashing from its all-time bull market high near $126,080 in early October 2025 to its bear market low near $58,556 in late June of this year. The coin also experienced a bear market in 2022, among other earlier instances.
I bought Bitcoin throughout both of those bear markets. I also bought the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEMKT: SPY), an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks the S&P 500, during the stock market's 2022 bear market. I started investing more consistently and more seriously in late 2019 and early 2020, so that's nearly seven years of regularly buying these assets, no matter what kind of market is happening. The returns from doing so have convinced me that the bear markets that many investors dread are actually where there's the most opportunity.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
Buying Bitcoin's 2022 bottom returned 393%
It's easy to say investors should be loading up during bear markets, but it's much harder to actually do so when the market keeps losing ground day after day.
The previous crypto bear market was, by some metrics, more difficult than this one. According to a CoinGecko study from late June this year, Bitcoin fell by 77% over 381 days, bottoming at $15,742 on Nov. 10, 2022. Anyone who bought at or around that low and held through Aug. 31, 2026, is up by 393%. For returns like that, the wait wasn't even very long, and investors didn't need to time their purchase precisely at the bottom to do well.
Doing the same thing with stocks also yielded good results. The S&P 500 declined by 25% across 282 days in 2022, closing at its low of 3,577 on Oct. 12. An S&P 500 investment at that low point would be up by 94% as of Aug. 31, 2026, before dividends.
Of course, I didn't buy either asset at the exact bottom.
I just kept buying on a regular, once-per-week schedule via dollar-cost averaging. I specifically remember sitting in my living room in 2022, looking at my accounts on my computer, grimacing, and considering whether to stop my automated purchases, as many down weeks had gone by, and it felt like I was throwing money into the incinerator. It felt bad to continue with what looked like a failing strategy, and seeing all the red in my accounts every day felt bad in general, especially after having recently experienced the market euphoria in 2021.
But I stayed the course, and it eventually paid off.
Make a plan and keep some cash at hand
You need to prepare for bear markets because they're inevitable.
Twenty-seven of them have happened in the S&P 500 since 1928, according to research from Hartford Funds conducted in 2025, with each bear market averaging a total of 289 days. The average bull market lasts 988 days, which should give you plenty of time to hone your strategy of regular purchasing, and also to sock away some additional cash to keep in reserve for the moments of maximum opportunity.
That reserve can sit unused for years, but it'll still serve a valuable psychological purpose.
Without any money on hand, when a bear market rolls around, even with a regular purchasing schedule, you still might feel a bit powerless, which can often lead to making impulsive and suboptimal financial decisions. Similarly, if you have some capital and the bear market presents some deep discounts on assets that you'd like to own for the long term, you can opportunistically accumulate them faster than you might be able to otherwise, which can really boost your morale when your portfolio is getting battered daily.
You don't need to like bear markets; you just need to act on them in a timely fashion. Copy my plan: Automate the buying, accumulate the quality assets at a faster pace while they're cheap, and then appreciate your efforts a few years later.
One last trick: Looking at your portfolio doesn't change its value. If you don't like what you see during a bear market, close the window and come back in a few weeks.
Should you buy stock in SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust right now?
Before you buy stock in SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, 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 SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 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 $437,097! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,355,077!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 978% — 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 1, 2026. *
Alex Carchidi has positions in Bitcoin and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
“Bear markets create opportunities, but the outcome depends on macro regime factors and asset correlations, not automation alone.”
The piece pushes a contrarian take that bear markets are opportunities, but the strongest counterpoints are macro regime risk and survivorship bias. A prolonged inflation problem or tighter-for-longer monetary policy can extend bear markets and compress returns from dollar-cost averaging into years of subpar performance, even with automation. The Bitcoin example depends on outsized liquidity and favorable regulation; if those conditions reverse, BTC and tech-heavy equities could stay depressed longer than the article implies. The piece cherry-picks winners (Nvidia, Netflix) and ignores costs, taxes, and cross-asset correlations. Relying on automation to ‘do the right thing’ won’t shield you from permanent capital loss in a harsher regime.
The strongest counter is that bear markets can end abruptly if inflation cools and rates start cutting, in which case a disciplined DCA approach could miss a sharper, faster rebound by staying too cautious. Also, correlations can spike in crises, turning supposed hedges into poor diversifiers.
“Dollar-cost averaging is a powerful psychological tool for index funds, but it is an insufficient risk-management strategy for volatile, speculative assets that lack intrinsic cash flows.”
The article promotes a 'buy the dip' philosophy via dollar-cost averaging (DCA), which is mathematically sound for long-term index investors but dangerously simplistic regarding asset selection. While DCA into the SPY (S&P 500) during a bear market is a proven wealth-builder, applying this same logic to volatile, speculative assets like Bitcoin assumes a long-term 'floor' that isn't guaranteed by historical precedent. The author conflates systematic index investing with speculative crypto-asset accumulation. For the average investor, the risk isn't just the bear market itself, but the 'value trap'—buying assets that experience permanent impairment rather than a cyclical recovery. Automation helps discipline, but it cannot replace fundamental due diligence.
The 'buy the dip' strategy assumes mean reversion is inevitable, yet if we enter a period of structural stagflation or prolonged geopolitical instability, 'buying the dip' becomes a recipe for catching falling knives in assets that may never reclaim their previous highs.
“Historical bear-market DCA returns for SPY and Bitcoin do not guarantee future results when recovery timelines or asset-class viability can change.”
The article correctly notes that regular DCA into SPY and Bitcoin during the 2022 bear market produced 94% and 393% gains by August 2026, respectively. Yet it underplays sequence risk: investors who needed withdrawals in 2023-2025 would have locked in losses, and the 27 historical S&P 500 bears since 1928 include multi-year drawdowns that exceeded average 289-day durations. Cash reserves help, but opportunity cost versus short-term Treasuries or defensive sectors is ignored. Automation mitigates panic selling, yet the piece offers no data on how many retail investors actually maintained weekly buys through the full 2022 decline.
A decade-long sideways or declining market triggered by sustained high rates or regulatory shocks to crypto could turn the cited 393% return into a permanent loss, rendering the 'buy every dip' plan irrelevant for anyone without indefinite holding power.
“Dollar-cost averaging through downturns works—but only if you have sufficient capital, time horizon, and psychological resilience; the article underweights how many investors lack all three.”
The article conflates survivorship bias with strategy. Yes, buying BTC at $15.7k in Nov 2022 returned 393%—but that required holding through a 77% drawdown and knowing (or betting) the bottom was in. Dollar-cost averaging softens timing risk, but the author's 7-year track record spans one of history's strongest bull markets (2019–2021, 2023–2024). The S&P 500's 94% return from Oct 2022 lows is real, but it's also cherry-picked: someone who DCA'd through 2022 but started in 2008 or 2000 faced very different outcomes. The psychological argument—'automate and ignore'—is sound. The empirical claim that bear markets are 'where there's the most opportunity' needs stress-testing: opportunity relative to what? A 20% drawdown in a 10-year bull market isn't the same as a 50% crash in a secular bear. Missing the timing on the rebound costs more than most investors admit.
If bear markets are so reliably profitable, why does the author need to invoke psychology and automation as solutions? The honest answer: most people who try this strategy fail because they either run out of dry powder, panic-sell into further declines, or face margin calls. Past performance in a 7-year window that included unprecedented central bank support and AI euphoria is not predictive.
The Debate
Responding to Grok
“Liquidity and funding constraints can erode DCA gains even in bear markets, and outsized crypto gains are fragile to policy shifts.”
I'll respond to Grok. Your sequence-risk caveat is valid, but the piece's blind spot is liquidity and funding risk: in a true bear-to-bull pivot, withdrawals or margin calls can force firesales, eroding DCA gains. Also, the 393% BTC payoff relied on outsized liquidity and favorable regulation; if policy tightens, crypto correlations can spike with equities. Automation won't fix liquidity crunches or drawdown sequencing.
Responding to Claude
“The 'buy the dip' automation strategy is a relic of a low-rate era and fails to account for the superior risk-adjusted returns of cash in a high-rate, stagnant market regime.”
Claude is right about the survivorship bias, but we are all ignoring the 'opportunity cost of capital' in a high-rate environment. Grok mentioned Treasuries, but the real risk is the 'lost decade' scenario. If we are entering a regime where real rates remain positive, the historical 'buy the dip' strategy loses its efficacy compared to simple cash-equivalent yields. The automation argument is a psychological crutch that ignores the potential for long-term capital stagnation in non-productive assets.
Responding to Gemini
“Sustained positive real yields could starve automated DCA into Bitcoin by crowding out inflows into safer fixed-income alternatives.”
Gemini's opportunity-cost warning in high-rate regimes links to ChatGPT's liquidity point, yet both miss how sustained real yields above 2 percent historically shifted capital from speculative assets into short Treasuries, starving the automated inflows the strategy requires. Bitcoin's 393 percent rebound relied on negative real rates; a repeat of 1970s conditions would turn weekly DCA into a cash-flow drain rather than a rebound capture.
Responding to Gemini
“The article's DCA thesis only works if real rates normalize lower; a structural shift to permanently elevated real yields invalidates the entire opportunity-cost calculus.”
Gemini and Grok are conflating two separate regimes. Yes, sustained 2%+ real yields kill speculative DCA. But the article's timeframe assumes mean reversion to historical norms (1.5% real yields). The real stress test: what if we're structurally stuck at 2.5%+ real rates for a decade? Then Treasuries genuinely outpace equities on risk-adjusted basis, and automation becomes a wealth-destroyer, not a builder. That's the regime nobody's pricing.
Panel Verdict
NEUTRAL No ConsensusThe panel generally agrees that while dollar-cost averaging (DCA) can be beneficial in long-term index investing, it may not be as effective in volatile markets or high-rate environments. They caution about liquidity risk, sequence risk, survivorship bias, and the potential for long-term capital stagnation in non-productive assets.
None explicitly stated.
Liquidity risk and the potential for long-term capital stagnation in high-rate environments.
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.