In fact, a rise in the market later in life is preferable to the same boost earlier in life. In a hypothetical example, The New York Times laid out how such a scenario could affect investors who each contributed $10,000 per year.
The person whose account performs the worst sees five blockbuster years of 50-percent returns followed by 25 years of zero returns. The person who performs the best has the exact opposite experience with 25 years of zilch growth and five years of 50 percent returns at the end.
Read MoreMost millennials worry about their financial future: study
Just how much is the gap in this hypothetical example? Try $448,200 for the unlucky investor with early gains versus $2.01 million for the lucky one with later gains.
"If you're not going to need the money until later, you'd rather the stocks go down and down and then increase at the end," said Wealthfront's executive chairman, Andy Rachleff. "It's counterintuitive, but it's true."
But such an outcome depends on the rare individual in the financial world: the rational investor who doesn't react hastily to poor market moves. To avoid falling prey to emotions, Rachleff recommends setting up consistent contributions and incorporating rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting into your investment strategy.
Read MoreHow to avoid overpaying for your car loan
Indeed, evidence shows investors often miss out by buying high and selling low. Since 1984, investor returns in equity funds have totaled 3.69 percent annually, much lower than the 11.11 percent return of the S&P 500, according to Dalbar, a research firm specializing in financial services. The firm found that the biggest losses tend to occur after a market decline.
"Investors tend to sell after experiencing a paper loss and start investing only after the markets have recovered their value," the firm wrote in a report. "The devastating result of this behavior is participation in the downside while being out of the market during the rise."