What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that while 'buy-and-hold' is a valid long-term strategy, it may not be sufficient for current market conditions. They highlight the risks of elevated valuations, potential inflationary pressures, and the possibility of systemic liquidity events.
Risk: Elevated valuations and potential systemic liquidity events
Opportunity: None explicitly stated
Key Points
After dropping more than 9% in value this year, the S&P 500 is already back to all-time highs.
Investors who rode out the short-term volatility were able to enjoy the rebound. People who got out when stocks were falling probably missed out altogether.
Stock market volatility is normal. Investors who successfully manage to buy and hold over time usually wind up seeing the best results.
- 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index ›
Earlier this year, the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) fell about 9%, while the Nasdaq-100 dropped 12%. It was the biggest decline for U.S. stocks in about a year and was triggered by the uncertainty over the war in Iran.
For many investors, it was a panic moment. Stock market corrections haven't been that common over the past few years, so the pain of seeing a loss in their investment values was no doubt very real. But while nobody wants to see the value of their accounts go down, how people react to that situation goes a long way in determining whether those short-term losses turn into long-term underperformance.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Investors who saw their investments decline over the past month and decided to get out before they risked further losses likely missed out on the entire rebound in April. In essence, they did the one thing behavioral finance experts tell you not to do: sell low and buy high (if they bought back in at all).
These types of market swings can teach us a lot about why it's important to maintain a long-term perspective and not give in to the temptation to make emotional decisions.
Key takeaways
- The S&P 500 fell 9% and the Nasdaq-100 fell 12% through the latter part of March, driven by the war in Iran, rising oil prices, and inflation concerns.
- In April, both indexes staged rallies following a two-week ceasefire agreement.
- Investors who sold their stocks during the decline likely did long-lasting damage to their portfolio returns. Bank of Americaresearch shows that investors who miss the market's best days end up losing out on most stock market returns.- Quick rebounds after sharp market declines are common. Most investors are better off just waiting things out.
The cost of selling low is significant
When people talk about long-term buy-and-hold investing, it's not just a platitude. Even in normal times, stocks are volatile. People need to understand that when they go in. They're usually fine with that when prices are going up. When prices go down, however, that's when you find out what a person's real risk tolerance is.
Studies have repeatedly shown that investors usually do damage to long-term returns by trying to time the market or sell when the market is declining. In the latter instance, they usually do the opposite of what they should. They sell low and fail to get back in before prices have already recovered. They're locking in losses while missing out on subsequent gains. And it's a recipe for poor returns.
Here's some of that research in real terms:
UBSfound that during past geopolitical conflicts where the S&P 500 dropped by 5% to 10% in a matter of weeks, it usually recaptured those losses within six months.- Bank of America found that since 1930, a buy-and-hold investment in the S&P 500 would have returned more than 17,000%. If you missed the 10 best days in each decade, the total return drops all the way to 28%.
The general rule is that if stocks fall by around 5% to 10% due to a geopolitical disruption, they've demonstrated a historical ability to recover pretty quickly. This is because geopolitical events are usually short-term in nature and rebounds can also occur in the short term. If the stock market decline approaches 20% or more, the recovery period is usually longer.
S&P 500 & Nasdaq-100: Staying invested through the cycle
| Metric | S&P 500 | Nasdaq-100 | |---|---|---| | Index decline (February-March 2026) | (9%) | (12%) | | April recovery | Back to all-time highs | Back to all-time highs | | 2026 YTD return (as of 4/15/26) | 2.4% | 3.4% | | Best use for long-term investors | Core diversified holding | Core growth holding | | Sensitivity to geopolitical shock | Moderate | Somewhat higher |
The biggest lesson out of all of this is that nobody knows when conflicts like this will end. Nor do they know the timeline or potential impact. Because of this, it usually causes more harm than good when people try to trade their investments based on unknown factors.
In most cases, it's best to ride out short-term volatility and avoid the temptation to do something to your portfolio. As we've seen in 2026, the market can swing quickly. The investors who come out ahead are likely to be the ones who react the least.
Let that be a lesson for the next crisis.
Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now?
Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, 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 S&P 500 Index 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 $580,872! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,219,180!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,016% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 197% 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 April 16, 2026. *
Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. David Dierking has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Historical recovery data from geopolitical shocks is a poor proxy for market performance when valuation multiples remain at historical highs amid persistent inflationary risks."
The article’s 'buy-and-hold' advice is mathematically sound but tactically incomplete. It conflates geopolitical shocks with fundamental regime changes. While the S&P 500 recovered from the 9% dip, we are ignoring the underlying liquidity conditions. If the 'ceasefire' proves fragile or inflationary pressures from energy volatility persist, the 2026 forward P/E of ~21x for the S&P 500 leaves almost zero margin for error. Relying on historical 'best days' data from Bank of America ignores that we are currently operating in a high-interest-rate environment that historically compresses valuation multiples. Investors should distinguish between volatility caused by headlines and volatility caused by deteriorating corporate earnings growth.
The 'buy-the-dip' crowd has been rewarded for a decade; betting against the resilience of U.S. markets has consistently been a wealth-destroying strategy regardless of valuation metrics.
"This minor dip-and-rebound proves little about resilience when valuations are stretched, risking deeper, stickier drawdowns next time."
The article rightly highlights behavioral pitfalls in market timing, with BofA data showing missing the best 10 days per decade slashes returns from 17,000% to 28% since 1930, and UBS noting 5-10% geopolitical dips recover in ~6 months. But this 9% S&P 500/12% Nasdaq-100 drop was shallow, tied to a quick Iran ceasefire—hardly a stress test. Omitted: sky-high valuations (S&P ~22x forward P/E vs 18x avg; Nasdaq 30x+ on AI bets) mean the next crisis could exceed 20%, with longer recoveries if oil/inflation bites fundamentals. Buy-hold works long-term, but near-term fragility demands diversification beyond indexes.
If AI delivers productivity miracles and earnings growth accelerates, these elevated multiples could expand further, making the rebound even stronger than historical norms.
"The article conflates short-term geopolitical corrections (which recover fast) with structural bear markets (which don't), then uses the former to justify ignoring valuation and cycle risk entirely."
The article conflates two distinct scenarios: a 9% correction that recovered in weeks versus the behavioral finance lesson it's selling. The real risk isn't whether buy-and-hold works—it does over decades—but whether this particular recovery signals anything about *future* crises. The Iran geopolitical shock resolved quickly; that's not predictive of structural downturns (2008, 2020). The article also cherry-picks: missing the 10 best days since 1930 is devastating, but it omits that missing the 10 *worst* days compounds gains even more. The implicit message—'do nothing'—works until it doesn't. We're at all-time highs with elevated valuations; the next crisis may not be geopolitical noise.
If the article's core thesis is correct—that time in market beats timing the market—then panicking during a 9% dip and missing the rebound is genuinely costly, and the historical data on buy-and-hold does support that. The counterargument that 'this time is different' has been wrong for 15 years.
"The next crisis is more likely to test the buy-and-hold thesis than this article implies due to regime risks like persistently higher rates and geopolitical shocks."
While the piece argues that buy-and-hold outperforms in the long run and that the rebound validated sticking with stocks, there are regime risks the story downplays. A sustained pickup in inflation or a policy error could push rates higher for longer and compress multiples even if earnings hold up, undermining the premise that volatility is comfortably navigable. The narrative also glosses over sequence risk for investors who may need liquidity soon, and it treats geopolitical shocks as short-lived. In short, the next leg of the cycle could test whether the 'ride out volatility' approach remains sufficient.
Bear case: the rebound may fade as earnings growth slows and rates stay higher for longer, compressing multiples. The article's view underplays the risk of a deeper drawdown if policy shifts surprise markets.
"The buy-and-hold narrative ignores the mathematical advantage of avoiding the market's worst-performing days, which is increasingly possible through modern tactical rebalancing."
Claude, your mention of 'missing the 10 worst days' is the critical missing variable in this BofA data set. The 'do nothing' advice ignores that modern retail platforms allow for tactical hedging or moving to cash during momentum-driven crashes. If the next liquidity event is systemic rather than geopolitical, the 'buy-and-hold' strategy isn't just suboptimal—it's a recipe for catastrophic drawdown. We are ignoring the role of automated volatility-targeting funds that exacerbate these sell-offs.
"Hedging sounds tactical but historically destroys alpha due to costs and missed rebounds, with sector EPS dispersion the unmentioned risk."
Gemini, your hedging pitch ignores transaction costs and timing errors that erode returns—BofA's data proves even experts underperform buy-hold by missing top days. Automated funds cut both ways, amplifying buys too. No one's flagged earnings dispersion: Q2 S&P ex-tech EPS growth stalled at 5% YoY, while Magnificent 7 hit 35%, meaning broad indexes mask rotation risks if rates stay elevated.
"Buy-and-hold advice is incomplete without acknowledging that index-level resilience currently depends on Magnificent 7 outperformance, not broad earnings health."
Grok's earnings dispersion point is the real tell. If ex-tech S&P growth stalled at 5% while Mag 7 hit 35%, the index recovery masks a narrowing breadth problem. That's not 'buy-and-hold resilience'—that's a concentration bet disguised as diversification. When rates stay elevated, multiple compression hits broad-market earnings harder than tech's growth premium. The article's 'stay invested' advice works only if you're overweight the 7 names. Most retail isn't.
"Hedging costs and timing risk in a systemic liquidity crunch can erode or exceed any buy-and-hold advantage."
Gemini, you’re right that hedges can matter, but you ignore the hidden costs and timing risk of relying on volatility-targeting and cash hedges in a systemic liquidity squeeze. In a regime shift—rates higher for longer, spreads widening—these strategies often suffer slippage, fund redemptions, and fire-sales when you need protection most. The question becomes: who bears the cost of hedging during a drawdown, and can it swamp any buy-and-hold advantage?
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel generally agrees that while 'buy-and-hold' is a valid long-term strategy, it may not be sufficient for current market conditions. They highlight the risks of elevated valuations, potential inflationary pressures, and the possibility of systemic liquidity events.
None explicitly stated
Elevated valuations and potential systemic liquidity events