There's a question that doesn't get asked enough on investing forums: What if I don't have 30 years?

Most investment advice is written for 25-year-olds with a Roth IRA and decades to ride out every crash. But what if you're 40, you finally have some money to invest, and retirement is only 15 years away? What if you're staring at the S&P 500 near all-time highs and thinking, "If I buy now and this thing pulls a Nikkei, I'm screwed"?

That's the situation one investor recently laid out, and it's more relatable than the finance industry wants to admit. They've got a good job, a dream house, and cash on the sidelines. But they're paralyzed by the fear of a "lost decade" - buying in now and watching their portfolio go sideways or down for the next 10-15 years.

And here's the thing: that fear isn't irrational.

The Nikkei Scenario Is Real

Let's talk about the elephant in the room. Japan's Nikkei 225 peaked in December 1989 at around 38,900. It didn't get back to that level until... 2024. That's 35 years.

Now, Japan had specific problems - a massive real estate bubble, demographic collapse, deflation, terrible corporate governance. The US is not Japan. But the S&P 500 has had its own lost decades. If you bought at the peak in 2000, you didn't break even until 2013. If you bought in late 2007, you were underwater until 2013.

So if you're 42 and planning to retire at 57, the idea that you could buy the S&P today and watch it go nowhere for the next decade isn't some crazy doomsday scenario. It's happened before, to real people, in recent memory.

Why "Time in the Market" Doesn't Always Apply

The standard advice - "just buy index funds and hold" - works great when you have time to recover. But time horizon matters. A 25-year-old who buys at a peak and suffers through a lost decade still has 30+ years to compound after the recovery. A 42-year-old doesn't.

This is where the financial advice industrial complex lets people down. The answer to "I'm worried about buying at the top" is almost always "you can't time the market" and "stocks always go up in the long run." Both are true! But neither addresses the actual problem: What if my long run isn't long enough?

If you need your portfolio to fund retirement in 15 years, you can't afford to be down 40% in year 14. You don't have the luxury of "just waiting it out."

What Actually Makes Sense

So what's the move? I'm not going to tell you "100% bonds" because inflation is real and bond yields barely cover it. But I'm also not going to tell you "100% VOO and chill" when you've got a 15-year window.

Here's what makes sense for someone in this position:

1. Accept that you're playing a different game. You're not trying to maximize returns. You're trying to get to retirement with enough money and without blowing up. That means accepting lower upside to avoid catastrophic downside.

2. Use a real glide path. The target-date retirement funds exist for a reason. As you get closer to retirement, you should be shifting toward more bonds and less equity. If you're 15 years out, something like a 60/40 or 70/30 stock/bond split is reasonable. Not exciting, but reasonable.

3. Dollar-cost average over time. If you've got a lump sum and you're worried about buying at the peak, don't buy it all at once. Spread it out over 12-24 months. Yes, you might underperform if stocks rip higher. But you also won't be the person who dumps everything in the day before a 30% crash.

4. Consider diversification beyond US stocks. The S&P 500 is not "the market." It's one market. International stocks, REITs, commodities, even a small allocation to gold - these things won't all move in lockstep. When one zigs, another zags. That's what diversification is supposed to do.

5. Don't ignore bonds just because yields are "low." A 4-5% yield on investment-grade bonds is not nothing. And more importantly, bonds provide ballast. When stocks crash, bonds (usually) don't. That's the whole point. You're not buying bonds for the return. You're buying them so you don't have to sell stocks at the bottom to pay your bills.

The Real Risk: Doing Nothing

Here's the irony: the biggest risk for someone in their 40s isn't buying at the top. It's doing nothing.

If you keep your money in a savings account earning 1-2% while inflation runs at 3%, you're losing purchasing power every year. Over 15 years, that adds up. You're not preserving your wealth. You're slowly eroding it.

So yes, buying stocks at all-time highs is scary. But holding cash while inflation eats your lunch is also scary. The right answer is probably somewhere in the middle: a balanced portfolio that gives you exposure to growth without betting everything on "stocks only go up."

Final Thought

If you're in your 40s and nervous about investing, you're not crazy. You're being rational. The people telling you "just buy and hold" have either never lived through a lost decade or they started investing young enough that it didn't matter.

You don't have that luxury. So build a portfolio that reflects your timeline, accept that you're going to leave some upside on the table, and focus on not screwing up. Because in 15 years, the person who stayed disciplined with a boring 60/40 portfolio is going to be a lot better off than the person who either went all-in at the peak or sat in cash the whole time.

Boring beats broken. Every time.