
It might be tempting to put 401(k) contributions on hold, but sticking with it is a better strategy
Amid this year's market turmoil, I've heard investors wonder if they should hit pause on 401(k) contributions until things settle down.
Though this approach sounds tempting, it's better to stick with your investment strategy instead of waiting for conditions to improve.
Running the numbers
To test how a 'wait and see' approach would have fared compared with continuing to invest, I looked at four different market downturns of the 21st century.
In each case, I looked at results under two different scenarios: an investor who started saving $500 per month and continued to do so throughout downturns, and another investor who stopped saving until the market started to improve. I assumed all contributions were invested in stocks. (In the first four cases below, I assumed that contributions were only paused during the bear market in question and then resumed for all the periods that followed.)
Case 1: March 2000–October 2002
Stocks suffered cumulative losses of about 33% from early 2000 through October 2002. But an investor who started investing $500 per month in March 2000 and kept doing that even throughout the turmoil would have about $700,000 as of March 31, 2025.
The 'wait and see' investor, on the other hand, would have about $573,000.
Case 2: October 2007–February 2009
The market downturn in 2008 was the second-worst calendar year for equity investors in recent market history.
An investor who started investing $500 per month in October 2007 and continued making monthly investments would have about $360,000 as of March 31, 2025. An investor who paused contributions until March 2009 would have about $307,000 as of the same date.
Case 3: February and March 2020
The covid-19-driven market downturn led broad stock market indexes to shed about 34% of their value from Feb. 19, 2020.
But after this sharp downturn, the rebound was even more impressive, with stocks posting gains of 28.7% during 2021. As a result, the 'keep buying' investor would have still ended slightly ahead by March 2025, even after suffering through market downturns in 2022 and early 2025.
Case 4: January 2022–October 2022
The 2022 market reversal was a sharp reaction to 2021's unexpected spike in inflation, followed by a series of aggressive interest-rate hikes. As a result, the Morningstar US Market Index lost about 19% from January through October of that year.
But thanks to the market's dramatic rebound, the 'keep buying' investor would have ended about $7,000 ahead by March 2025.
Case 5: January 2000–March 2025
The differences are even more dramatic over a longer period.
For this analysis, I assumed that an investor started contributions of $500 per month in January 2000, paused during each of the four above downturns, and then resumed contributions after the market had bottomed out.
But even in this seemingly ideal scenario, consistent contributions won out. The consistent 401(k) contributor ended up nearly $200,000 ahead of the stop-and-start investor.
The reason? Consistent contributions meant there were more dollars around to benefit when the market rebounded, while hitting pause on contributions meant the opposite. And the impact compounds over time.
The 'wait and see' investor would have skipped out on 61 months' worth of contributions for a total of $30,500 but ended with a balance about $184,000 lower than the 'keep buying' approach.
Why retirement savers shouldn't give up
These examples make a strong case for sticking with the plan, even during a bear market. But this analysis probably overstates the results for 'wait and see' investors because it assumes that investors somehow knew when the market would start recovering.
Not only is it tough to get the timing right for a market recovery, but keeping money on the sidelines means betting against the odds. Statistically speaking, the market goes up more than it goes down. Watching a 401(k) lose money isn't fun to live through, but things eventually turn around.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
Seven partners depart law firm Willkie Farr to join Cooley after Trump deal
June 13 (Reuters) - A group of seven partners is leaving Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which struck a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump in April to avert an executive order targeting its business, to join Cooley, which is representing one of the law firms fighting Trump's orders. Cooley on Friday said Simona Agnolucci, Benedict Hur, Joshua Anderson, Tiffany Lin, Jonathan Patchen, Michael Rome and Eduardo Santacana are joining the firm as litigation partners in San Francisco. The lawyers leaving New York-founded Willkie, which has more than 1,200 lawyers, are among the latest to depart from major U.S. firms that have made deals with Trump. Agnolucci and Hur, who were both leaders of Willkie's San Francisco office, and the other departing partners did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. Agnolucci was also a member of the firm's executive committee. The New York Times, which first reported the departures earlier on Friday, cited an unnamed source who said Agnolucci and Hur had told others they were disappointed that Willkie had capitulated to Trump. Reuters could not independently confirm the report. A Willkie spokesperson said "we wish them well" and had no further comment. Some of the former Willkie lawyers have represented major tech clients on court matters. Agnolucci, Hur and Patchen were on Google's defense team in litigation led by the state of Texas that led to a $1.8 billion settlement. Palo Alto-founded Cooley is representing Jenner & Block in its legal challenge to a Trump executive order that restricted Jenner's access to government officials and threatened its federal contracting work. A federal judge in May overturned Trump's order, calling it an unconstitutional act of retaliation for Jenner's past cases and its employment of a prosecutor who investigated ties between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. Cooley CEO Rachel Proffitt in a statement said the firm is "thrilled to welcome this esteemed group of Bay Area leaders and litigators." Willkie Farr in its deal with Trump had agreed to provide free legal services worth $100 million to mutually agreed-upon projects with the administration and had pledged not to engage in illegal diversity-related employment practices. Eight other large firms have reached similar agreements with the White House. Willkie's leadership had said in an internal email seen by Reuters in April that the deal prevented Trump from signing an executive order that could have imperiled the firm and its clients, though it had acknowledged dissent about the decision. The first firm to settle with Trump, Paul Weiss, has seen at least eight partners leave since its agreement in March. Since the end of May, seven partners have left the firm to join a new firm, Dunn Isaacson Rhee, co-founded by former Paul Weiss partner Karen Dunn. The new firm has taken over from Paul Weiss in at least one case – an antitrust lawsuit in Nevada in which some of the former Paul Weiss lawyers are representing the Ultimate Fighting Championship, according to court documents filed this week. A Paul Weiss spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Dunn Isaacson firm is now also representing Google and Qualcomm in antitrust litigation, though Paul Weiss remains involved in those cases.


Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
McDonald's settles Byron Allen's $10 billion lawsuit over commitment to Black-owned media
June 13 (Reuters) - McDonald's (MCD.N), opens new tab has settled a $10 billion lawsuit by the media entrepreneur Byron Allen challenging the fast-food chain's alleged refusal to advertise with Black-owned media. Friday's settlement between McDonald's and two of Allen's companies, Entertainment Studios Networks and the Weather Group, averts a scheduled July 15 trial in Los Angeles federal court. It also resolves Allen's related $100 million lawsuit against McDonald's in Los Angeles Superior Court. McDonald's said it will buy ads "at market value" from Allen's companies "in a manner that aligns with its advertising strategy and commercial objectives." Settlement terms are confidential. McDonald's, based in Chicago, denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. In a statement, Allen's companies said "we acknowledge McDonald's commitment to investing in Black-owned media properties and increasing access to opportunity. Our differences are behind us." Allen had accused McDonald's of "racial stereotyping" by not advertising with Black-owned media, and lying when it pledged in 2021 to boost national ad spending with those media to 5% from 2% by 2024. He said he relied on that pledge when seeking new business from McDonald's, only to be rebuffed. Allen also said his Allen Media Group represented more than 90% of Black-owned media. Allen's networks include The Weather Channel, Justice Central, and


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Live Nation case at US Supreme Court tests reach of arbitration law
June 13 (Reuters) - A firm that developed rules for large scale arbitrations has asked the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving entertainment giant Live Nation (LYV.N), opens new tab to reject a ruling that criticized the procedures as unfair to consumers. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed, opens new tab on Thursday, dispute resolution firm New Era ADR said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had last year misinterpreted its rules in a decision rejecting Live Nation's efforts to require consumers to agree to arbitrate any disputes when they purchased tickets. Live Nation was accused of charging artificially high ticket prices in a lawsuit that the event company tried unsuccessfully to move them into arbitration. The 9th Circuit had last year rejected New Era's arbitration rules and said the consumer plaintiffs could sue Live Nation in a proposed class action in federal court. New Era is not a party in the lawsuit. It submitted a filing to the justices as a friend of the court, defending its practices. Live Nation has denied any wrongdoing. The case, which the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear, could give the justices a fresh chance to weigh the contours of the Federal Arbitration Act and whether so-called mass arbitration fits into the decades-old law. Live Nation in its petition, opens new tab to the high court said plaintiffs' lawyers were increasingly pursuing mass arbitration as a pressure tactic to force companies to settle what it called meritless claims. Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lead attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment. New Era chief executive Rich Lee in a statement said the company was "focused on removing gamesmanship and impediments to ensure that all parties have their cases heard and efficiently resolved on their merits." Companies often promote arbitration as a more efficient way for individual consumers to air their disputes outside of court. As more companies have employed arbitration agreements to steer consumer claims away from the federal courts, plaintiffs' lawyers have increasingly turned to mass arbitrations, filing thousands of individual arbitration demands that are nearly identical. Live Nation in 2021 had turned to New Era, a new dispute resolution company, to use its mass arbitration platform. A federal judge in 2023 had ruled that Live Nation could not enforce its arbitration provisions, and the 9th Circuit had last year upheld the decision. The 9th Circuit had determined that New Era's mass arbitration rules were 'so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory to be borderline unintelligible.' New Era's Supreme Court filing said its rules 'have remained centered on keeping mass arbitration workable, accessible, fast, and merits-based for all parties involved.' In a separate filing, opens new tab on Thursday, lawyers for the consumers urged the justices to leave the 9th Circuit's order in place. The case is Live Nation Entertainment et al v. Skot Heckman et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. For plaintiffs: Warren Postman of Keller Postman, and Kevin Teruya of Quinn Emanuel For Live Nation: Roman Martinez and Tim O'Mara of Latham & Watkins For New Era: Sandra Musumeci of Kelley Drye & Warren Read more: Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits Lawsuit accuses American Arbitration Association of monopolizing consumer market Samsung defeats consumers' mass arbitration demand in US appeals court