Thanks to Dirk Cotton for the shout-out in his December 5 post, Think Like a Bayesian Pig. Another excellent post from Mr. Cotton, and the comments that follow his post are also very worthwhile reading.
At the bottom of his post, Dirk provides a link to a 2005 paper by Moshe A. Milevsky and Chris Robinson, and in the comment section, he provides a link to the Milevsky Probabililty of Portfolio Ruin Calculator.
I must admit that the work done by Milevsky and Robinson was unfamiliar to me. So, thanks to Dirk for bringing it to my attention. While the paper is somewhat technical, the Probability of Ruin Calculator associated with the paper is not all that complicated, and it turns out to be a very powerful tool in my opinion. I was so impressed with it that I am including it in the "Other Calculators/Tools" section of this website. I believe that that the Milevsky tool can provide retirees and financial planners with another valid point of reference (in addition to the approach recommended in this website and other approaches) to be used in developing a spending budget, particularly if the retiree has no other fixed dollar sources of retirement income (like fixed dollar pensions/annuities) or significant bequest motives. The remainder of this post will discuss the Milevsky/Robinson approach and how I think it can best be used for budgeting in retirement under certain circumstances.
Milevsky/Robinson Approach
As opposed to the deterministic approach for investment returns and expected payout periods baked into the simple spreadsheet provided on this website, Milevsky and Robinson advocate an approach that successfully reflects the fact that both investment rates of return and the time until death are stochastic in nature (have certain probability distributions). By making certain assumptions about the probability distributions, they develop probabilities of sustainable real dollar spending rates for various combinations of life expectancy, expected real rates of return and portfolio risk (measured by the standard deviation of the distribution of returns).
When using Milevsky's Probability of Portfolio Ruin Calculator, the user should note that the expected portfolio rate of return (an arithmetic mean over the remaining lifetime) input is a real (after-inflation) percentage. Thus, the expected rate of return comparable to the real rate recommended in this website is 2% (which is approximately the real rate implied by a 5% per annum nominal investment return and 3% per annum inflation). Also note that the spreadsheet anticipates inputting a whole number of years remaining in retirement equal to the retiree's remaining life expectancy. Inputting expected rate of return, portfolio standard deviation, withdrawal rate (a percentage of accumulated savings at the current age with such product increasing by inflation in subsequent years) and remaining life expectancy at the current age, the spreadsheet produces a probability of ruin (running out of money prior to death) and it's complement (not running out of money prior to death).
Keeping in mind that since there is approximately a 50% probability of outliving one's life expectancy, any probability of ruin less than 50% means that the retiree is more likely than not to die before running out of money (assuming no future changes in spending occur). A probability of ruin of 25% means that the retiree is about three times more likely (75%/25%) than not to die before running out of money (assuming no future change in spending occur). Since many retirees are almost as worried about not spending enough as those who are worried about spending too much, it does not bother me to develop a spending budget based on a 25% probability of ruin. As I have previously indicated in this website, developing a spending budget for retirement is a "balancing act." It is also important to note that the term "ruin" here may be a misnomer and may more appropriately be considered as a probability that real dollar spending may need to be reduced in the very later years of life as a result of living well beyond one's life expectancy. This possibility may not be a disaster, but may actually be more consistent with studies that show declining spending needs at older ages.
I compared results of the Milevsky's Probability of Portfolio Ruin Calculator (using assumptions described below) with the results of the simple spreadsheet in this website (Excluding Social Security V 2.0) using the recommended assumptions. If I input a 2% real expected rate of return in Milevsky's spreadsheet, 5% standard deviation, male life expectancy based on the average of the 2010 Social Security and 2012 Individual Annuity Mortality Tables available on the Society of Actuaries website (a link to which resides in the "Other Calculators/Tools" section of this website) and solve for the withdrawal rate that produces approximately a 25% probability of "ruin", I come very close to the withdrawal rates produced using the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet and the recommended assumptions at most ages. There is some significant deviation at the very older ages, as I recommend using life expectancy if age plus life expectancy is greater than 95. When I reach my late 80's I may switch to the Milevsky approach depending on how concerned I become at that point about outliving my savings. Females, who have longer life expectancy, may also wish to look at the Milevsky approach when they reach their mid-80s.
Those of you out there who play with this spreadsheet may find it of interest that inputting a 4.4% withdrawal rate and 20-year life expectancy and an 8% withdrawal rate and 9 year life expectancy will produce about a 25% probability of ruin for each of the following combinations of expected real investment return/standard deviations: 2%/5%, 3%/11.5%, 4%/15.5%, 5%/19%, 6%/21.7% and 7%/24.5%. This result shows that achieving higher real rates of return by taking on more risk may not increase your retirement budget.
How to best use the Milevsky Spreadsheet (In My Opinion)
As alluded to above, while the Milevsky spreadsheet is a powerful tool that provides retirees with another data point in planning for retirement, it does have some weaknesses. It does not, for example, coordinate the spending budget with fixed immediate or deferred annuities/pensions and it does not reflect bequest motives.
In his post, Dirk Cotton says that the Probability of Ruin Calculator is also an actuarial approach. I'm going to mildly object to this claim. I would say that it may be used as part of an actuarial approach, but by itself, it is more like an alternative Safe Withdrawal Rate generator, particularly if it is only used once at the retiree's initial retirement age. I understand that Dirk is not actually suggesting this, but to be clear, to be considered an actuarial approach, it should involve an annual re-measurement (although not necessarily annual redetermination of the actual budget amount). This is how I would use the Milevsky approach if I did not have other fixed dollar retirement income sources and bequest motives (and I wanted another data point to consider): Step 1: Calculate the withdrawal rate at initial retirement consistent with a 25% probability of ruin, a 2% expected investment return, a 5% standard deviation and a reasonable life expectancy for me (not necessarily based on the mortality of individuals who purchase life annuities). Step 2: Multiply the withdrawal rate determined in Step 1 by my accumulated savings at initial retirement. This is my spending budget for year 1. Step 3: In year two, increase the dollar amount determined in the previous year by the increase in inflation over the previous year. Revisit the spreadsheet using an updated life expectancy (but generally the same other assumptions and probability of ruin used in the first year) and multiply the resulting withdrawal rate by an update of actual accumulated savings (i.e., current year's assets). If the spending budget for the previous year is within 10% of the product of the updated withdrawal percentage and updated assets, just stay with the spending budget for the previous year increased with inflation. If not, use the corridor value. Step 4: Repeat Step 3 each year. Note that this basically the same approach (involving the same smoothing algorithm) recommended for the Actuarial Approach in this website.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Demystifying the Spending Spreadsheets on This Website
From time to time, we get questions about our spending spreadsheets. In an effort to provide retirees who visit this site with a higher level of comfort with the spreadsheets, this post will attempt to explain them in more detail.
We provide two simple Excel spreadsheets in this website for the purpose of helping you develop your annual spending budget in retirement as part of what we call “The Actuarial Approach.” The spreadsheets are located in the “Articles/Spreadsheet” section. The first one (Excluding Social Security V 2.0) generally applies if you are currently receiving Social Security benefits and develops a total spending amount (from accumulated savings and any immediate or deferred annuity or pension income for which you may be eligible). To obtain your total spending budget for the year, you take the result from this spreadsheet (or a smoothed result based on our recommended smoothing algorithm or some other smoothing algorithm) and add income you expect to receive from other sources in the next year such as your Social Security benefit, other inflation-indexed annuity/pension benefits, expected earnings from employment, etc.
The second spreadsheet (Social Security Bridge) applies if you are not currently receiving Social Security benefits but would like to coordinate your current retirement spending with Social Security benefits you expect to receive in the future.
The Total Spendable Amount shown in the Results section of the Input tab is the answer to the mathematic problem, "What total spendable amount (from accumulated savings and annuities) may be spent in the current year, to be increased each subsequent year by a constant percentage so that accumulated assets will exactly equal the amount desired to be left to heirs at the end of the expected payout period?"
Please be patient when downloading the Excel spreadsheets. Sometimes it can take a while. If you are requested to provide a password, simply click "cancel" and the spreadsheet should appear.
If you are having trouble seeing all the cells in the spreadsheet once it has downloaded (or you want to see a year-by-year runout of your accumulated savings based on the input items), be sure to maximize the spreadsheet window (by clicking on the “maximize” box in the top right-hand corner of the spreadsheet).
The Excluding Social Security V 2.0 has three tabs in the spreadsheet. The Social Security Bridge spreadsheet only has two tabs. As noted above, if you can’t see the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheets, you need to maximize the spreadsheet window. After you do this, you should see the tabs labeled, “Input”, “Runout” and “Inflation-adjusted Runout.” The Social Security Bridge spreadsheet does not have an inflation-adjusted runout tab.
The input sheet allows you to enter your data and assumptions used in the calculations. Once you enter these items, results are shown in the bottom portion of the spreadsheet.
The Runout tab shows results in nominal (non-inflation-indexed) dollars. The first year of the Runout spreadsheet shows the beginning of year balance of accumulated savings that you entered, the amount to be withdrawn (payment) from accumulated savings for that year, expected investment return (interest) on the beginning of year balance, any immediate life annuity income for the year, the total spendable amount (from accumulated savings and pension/annuity) for the year and the accumulated savings withdrawal as a percentage of the beginning of year balance. Similar amounts are shown for each subsequent year based on the expected payout period you entered in the input sheet. The run-out is based on the assumptions discussed at the top of the spreadsheet. If you want, you can check to see that the end of year accumulated savings is equal to the beginning of year accumulated savings minus the amount withdrawn during the year plus the expected investment return for the year. Note that the Runout spreadsheet is somewhat self-checking. At the end of the expected payout period you entered, the end of year balance for that year should exactly match the amount you entered in the input spreadsheet for the “desired amount of savings to be left at death.”
The inflation-adjusted Runout sheet (in Excluding Social Security V 2.0 only) adjusts the expected year by year results shown in the Runout sheet for inflation based on the assumption for inflation that you input as the last input item on the input sheet. If you input the same rate for “annual desired increase in payments” and “expected annual rate of inflation”, the total inflation-adjusted spendable amount shown in Column L should remain the same throughout the expected payment period.
Below are screen shots from the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet showing the input, and its two Runout sheets. The data and assumptions used are shown in the Input sheet.
As discussed above, the Runout sheet for this example shows an end of year accumulated savings balance of $10,000 at the end of the 30th year (the amount inputted for desired savings remaining at death), and the Inflation-Adjusted Runout sheet shows a total inflation adjusted spending amount that remains constant throughout the 30-year expected payment period of $40,259 per year.
We provide two simple Excel spreadsheets in this website for the purpose of helping you develop your annual spending budget in retirement as part of what we call “The Actuarial Approach.” The spreadsheets are located in the “Articles/Spreadsheet” section. The first one (Excluding Social Security V 2.0) generally applies if you are currently receiving Social Security benefits and develops a total spending amount (from accumulated savings and any immediate or deferred annuity or pension income for which you may be eligible). To obtain your total spending budget for the year, you take the result from this spreadsheet (or a smoothed result based on our recommended smoothing algorithm or some other smoothing algorithm) and add income you expect to receive from other sources in the next year such as your Social Security benefit, other inflation-indexed annuity/pension benefits, expected earnings from employment, etc.
The second spreadsheet (Social Security Bridge) applies if you are not currently receiving Social Security benefits but would like to coordinate your current retirement spending with Social Security benefits you expect to receive in the future.
The Total Spendable Amount shown in the Results section of the Input tab is the answer to the mathematic problem, "What total spendable amount (from accumulated savings and annuities) may be spent in the current year, to be increased each subsequent year by a constant percentage so that accumulated assets will exactly equal the amount desired to be left to heirs at the end of the expected payout period?"
Please be patient when downloading the Excel spreadsheets. Sometimes it can take a while. If you are requested to provide a password, simply click "cancel" and the spreadsheet should appear.
If you are having trouble seeing all the cells in the spreadsheet once it has downloaded (or you want to see a year-by-year runout of your accumulated savings based on the input items), be sure to maximize the spreadsheet window (by clicking on the “maximize” box in the top right-hand corner of the spreadsheet).
The Excluding Social Security V 2.0 has three tabs in the spreadsheet. The Social Security Bridge spreadsheet only has two tabs. As noted above, if you can’t see the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheets, you need to maximize the spreadsheet window. After you do this, you should see the tabs labeled, “Input”, “Runout” and “Inflation-adjusted Runout.” The Social Security Bridge spreadsheet does not have an inflation-adjusted runout tab.
The input sheet allows you to enter your data and assumptions used in the calculations. Once you enter these items, results are shown in the bottom portion of the spreadsheet.
The Runout tab shows results in nominal (non-inflation-indexed) dollars. The first year of the Runout spreadsheet shows the beginning of year balance of accumulated savings that you entered, the amount to be withdrawn (payment) from accumulated savings for that year, expected investment return (interest) on the beginning of year balance, any immediate life annuity income for the year, the total spendable amount (from accumulated savings and pension/annuity) for the year and the accumulated savings withdrawal as a percentage of the beginning of year balance. Similar amounts are shown for each subsequent year based on the expected payout period you entered in the input sheet. The run-out is based on the assumptions discussed at the top of the spreadsheet. If you want, you can check to see that the end of year accumulated savings is equal to the beginning of year accumulated savings minus the amount withdrawn during the year plus the expected investment return for the year. Note that the Runout spreadsheet is somewhat self-checking. At the end of the expected payout period you entered, the end of year balance for that year should exactly match the amount you entered in the input spreadsheet for the “desired amount of savings to be left at death.”
The inflation-adjusted Runout sheet (in Excluding Social Security V 2.0 only) adjusts the expected year by year results shown in the Runout sheet for inflation based on the assumption for inflation that you input as the last input item on the input sheet. If you input the same rate for “annual desired increase in payments” and “expected annual rate of inflation”, the total inflation-adjusted spendable amount shown in Column L should remain the same throughout the expected payment period.
Below are screen shots from the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet showing the input, and its two Runout sheets. The data and assumptions used are shown in the Input sheet.
As discussed above, the Runout sheet for this example shows an end of year accumulated savings balance of $10,000 at the end of the 30th year (the amount inputted for desired savings remaining at death), and the Inflation-Adjusted Runout sheet shows a total inflation adjusted spending amount that remains constant throughout the 30-year expected payment period of $40,259 per year.
Input
(click to enlarge)
Runout
(click to enlarge)
Inflation-adjusted Runout
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Revisiting Recommended Assumptions
As discussed in our posts of July 12, 2013 and October 11, 2013, and in the Journal of Personal Finance paper (originally written in February, 2014), we have been recommending the following assumptions for annual budget determinations under the Actuarial Approach:
The remainder of this post will discuss the rationale for continuing these recommended assumptions.
Investment Return and Inflation Assumptions
In prior discussions, I have tied the expected future nominal expected rate of investment return on accumulated assets to the approximate interest rate "baked into" immediate annuity purchases. For this purpose, I have used the immediate annuity purchase rates made available on the Income Solutions website.
According to this website, as of November 26, 2014, a premium of $100,000 could purchase a monthly immediate annuity of $571 for a 65 year old male and $544 for a 65 year old female. Assuming a life expectancy at age 65 of 22.9 years for a 65-year old male and 24.9 years for a 65-year old female (based on the Society of Actuaries 2012 Individual Annuity Mortality Table with 1% per year mortality improvement, a link to which is available in the "Other Calculators/Tools" section of this website), I have determined that the interest rate inherent in these annuity purchase rates is about 4.3%. This rate is slightly lower than the 4.6% rate I approximated last February using the same approach. This change may be due to the use of more conservative mortality assumptions, declining interest rates or some combination of the two.
While I have no problem if a retiree wants to use an investment return assumption lower than 5% (particularly if the retiree is heavily invested in fixed income securities), I continue to believe that an annual 5% nominal return can be reasonably justified by retirees with relatively diversified investment portfolios. I would caution, however, against assuming higher nominal (or real) investment returns based on increased investment in equities as those strategies carry more risk that should be reflected in the assumption.
Consistent with Wade Pfau's research, I believe budgeting should assume a real rate of return of about 2% per annum, so I am retaining the 3% per annum inflation assumption combined with the 5% investment return assumption as my recommended economic assumptions for 2015 budgeting.
Mortality
As discussed above, the Society of Actuaries has released several new mortality tables which show significant mortality improvement has taken place in recent years. For example, life expectancy for a 65-year old male has increased by about a year under the new Individual Annuity Mortality Table (with 1% annual improvement). Under this revised table, a 65-year old male has about a 24% probability of surviving until age 95, while this probability is about 33% for a 65-year old female. Note, however, that this new table is based on mortality experience for individuals who buy immediate annuities from insurance companies and presumably have better than average health. By comparison, life expectancies under the 2010 Social Security tables (with 1% mortality improvement), with experience based on essentially the U.S. population are 17.6 years for 65-year old males and 20.4 years for 65-year old females, respectively. While some argument can be made for increasing the "live to 95" assumption by a year (at least for females), I continue to believe that this assumption is reasonable. Of course, if you are already in your late 80s, you need to look at longer possible payment periods.
If you are the rare retiree who has a good idea when you are going to die, feel free to use your knowledge in your budgeting. If you are like most of us, you should plan to live longer than your life expectancy, at least relatively early in your retirement. The problem with doing this is that this increases the probability that you will die with more (unspent) assets than you desired. To some extent, this is simply the cost of not buying an annuity.
The chart below shows projected budget amounts (in inflation-adjusted dollars) for a 65-year old retiree with $600,000 in accumulated assets under the Actuarial Approach (and recommended smoothing) using two different approaches for determining the remaining payout period. The first approach uses the retiree's life expectancy (based on the SoA 2012 Individual Annuity Table) while the second approach uses the "live until 95" approach recommended in this website. Investments are assumed to earn 5% per annum, inflation is assumed to be 3% per annum and the retiree is assumed to spend exactly the budget amount each year. This chart illustrates the problem with using one's life expectancy each year and having the misfortune? of surviving.
- Expected annual rate of return on savings: 5% (a nominal interest rate)
- Annual desired increase in payments/inflation: 3%,
- Expected payout period (in years): Until age 95 or life expectancy if longer.
The remainder of this post will discuss the rationale for continuing these recommended assumptions.
Investment Return and Inflation Assumptions
In prior discussions, I have tied the expected future nominal expected rate of investment return on accumulated assets to the approximate interest rate "baked into" immediate annuity purchases. For this purpose, I have used the immediate annuity purchase rates made available on the Income Solutions website.
According to this website, as of November 26, 2014, a premium of $100,000 could purchase a monthly immediate annuity of $571 for a 65 year old male and $544 for a 65 year old female. Assuming a life expectancy at age 65 of 22.9 years for a 65-year old male and 24.9 years for a 65-year old female (based on the Society of Actuaries 2012 Individual Annuity Mortality Table with 1% per year mortality improvement, a link to which is available in the "Other Calculators/Tools" section of this website), I have determined that the interest rate inherent in these annuity purchase rates is about 4.3%. This rate is slightly lower than the 4.6% rate I approximated last February using the same approach. This change may be due to the use of more conservative mortality assumptions, declining interest rates or some combination of the two.
While I have no problem if a retiree wants to use an investment return assumption lower than 5% (particularly if the retiree is heavily invested in fixed income securities), I continue to believe that an annual 5% nominal return can be reasonably justified by retirees with relatively diversified investment portfolios. I would caution, however, against assuming higher nominal (or real) investment returns based on increased investment in equities as those strategies carry more risk that should be reflected in the assumption.
Consistent with Wade Pfau's research, I believe budgeting should assume a real rate of return of about 2% per annum, so I am retaining the 3% per annum inflation assumption combined with the 5% investment return assumption as my recommended economic assumptions for 2015 budgeting.
Mortality
As discussed above, the Society of Actuaries has released several new mortality tables which show significant mortality improvement has taken place in recent years. For example, life expectancy for a 65-year old male has increased by about a year under the new Individual Annuity Mortality Table (with 1% annual improvement). Under this revised table, a 65-year old male has about a 24% probability of surviving until age 95, while this probability is about 33% for a 65-year old female. Note, however, that this new table is based on mortality experience for individuals who buy immediate annuities from insurance companies and presumably have better than average health. By comparison, life expectancies under the 2010 Social Security tables (with 1% mortality improvement), with experience based on essentially the U.S. population are 17.6 years for 65-year old males and 20.4 years for 65-year old females, respectively. While some argument can be made for increasing the "live to 95" assumption by a year (at least for females), I continue to believe that this assumption is reasonable. Of course, if you are already in your late 80s, you need to look at longer possible payment periods.
If you are the rare retiree who has a good idea when you are going to die, feel free to use your knowledge in your budgeting. If you are like most of us, you should plan to live longer than your life expectancy, at least relatively early in your retirement. The problem with doing this is that this increases the probability that you will die with more (unspent) assets than you desired. To some extent, this is simply the cost of not buying an annuity.
The chart below shows projected budget amounts (in inflation-adjusted dollars) for a 65-year old retiree with $600,000 in accumulated assets under the Actuarial Approach (and recommended smoothing) using two different approaches for determining the remaining payout period. The first approach uses the retiree's life expectancy (based on the SoA 2012 Individual Annuity Table) while the second approach uses the "live until 95" approach recommended in this website. Investments are assumed to earn 5% per annum, inflation is assumed to be 3% per annum and the retiree is assumed to spend exactly the budget amount each year. This chart illustrates the problem with using one's life expectancy each year and having the misfortune? of surviving.
(click to enlarge)
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Don't Use the 4% Withdrawal Rule--And For Gosh Sake, Don't Use it With a Reset Button
In his November 26 article, "Why Retirees Now Have to Question the 4% Withdrawal Rule," Jeff Brown suggests modifying the 4% Rule to make it more flexible rather than maintaining its "set-and-forget" characteristic and employing a lower safe withdrawal rate as some advisers have suggested in light of current low yields on fixed income investments. Mr. Brown says,
"So how do you get from here to the living-large lifestyle [The 4% withdrawal at initial retirement increased by inflation] described above? With flexibility. You don't need to skimp every year to prepare for a disaster that might never happen so long as you can cut spending if it does. That way, if the $1 million portfolio [at initial retirement] were to fall to $700,000, you could hit reset and withdraw only 4 percent of the new amount -- $28,000 instead of $40,000 plus inflation. If the fund were to recover, you could hit reset again and take 4 percent of the new amount, then go back to annual increases to offset inflation."
There is nothing magical about 4%. It happens to be a reasonable withdrawal rate if you are a currently age 65 planning for a thirty-year retirement, you are using the assumptions we recommend for the spreadsheet tools on this website and you have no other annuity income or plans to leave money to heirs. If you go to the runout page of the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet on this site, you will see that the budget withdrawal from savings under the circumstances described above is 4.34% at age 65, 4.99% at age 70, 5.97% at age 75, 7.60% at age 80 and 10.89% at age 85. This is just mathematics based on a declining expected payout period as one ages. Thus, any approach that hits the 4% restart button at an age after 65, is going to miss the mark.
If you are going to utilize a flexible approach that increases or decreases spending budget amounts based on actual experience (be it from investment experience more or less than assumed or spending variations), you are better off using the Actuarial Approach and hitting the reset button on that approach each year to stay on track. If you want to have some smoothing in your spending budget from year to year, use the smoothing approach we recommend.
Its coming up to the end of the year. This year again, we will revisit some of the example people we have looked at over the past couple of years to determine 2015 spending budgets for them in light of 2014 experience. Once again, we will illustrate how effective and how easy the Actuarial Approach budgeting process can be.
"So how do you get from here to the living-large lifestyle [The 4% withdrawal at initial retirement increased by inflation] described above? With flexibility. You don't need to skimp every year to prepare for a disaster that might never happen so long as you can cut spending if it does. That way, if the $1 million portfolio [at initial retirement] were to fall to $700,000, you could hit reset and withdraw only 4 percent of the new amount -- $28,000 instead of $40,000 plus inflation. If the fund were to recover, you could hit reset again and take 4 percent of the new amount, then go back to annual increases to offset inflation."
There is nothing magical about 4%. It happens to be a reasonable withdrawal rate if you are a currently age 65 planning for a thirty-year retirement, you are using the assumptions we recommend for the spreadsheet tools on this website and you have no other annuity income or plans to leave money to heirs. If you go to the runout page of the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet on this site, you will see that the budget withdrawal from savings under the circumstances described above is 4.34% at age 65, 4.99% at age 70, 5.97% at age 75, 7.60% at age 80 and 10.89% at age 85. This is just mathematics based on a declining expected payout period as one ages. Thus, any approach that hits the 4% restart button at an age after 65, is going to miss the mark.
If you are going to utilize a flexible approach that increases or decreases spending budget amounts based on actual experience (be it from investment experience more or less than assumed or spending variations), you are better off using the Actuarial Approach and hitting the reset button on that approach each year to stay on track. If you want to have some smoothing in your spending budget from year to year, use the smoothing approach we recommend.
Its coming up to the end of the year. This year again, we will revisit some of the example people we have looked at over the past couple of years to determine 2015 spending budgets for them in light of 2014 experience. Once again, we will illustrate how effective and how easy the Actuarial Approach budgeting process can be.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Measuring Personal Retirement Plan Liabilities
I'm pleased to see that several retirement pundits are extolling the virtues of measuring personal retirement plan liabilities and comparing those liabilities with accumulated assets to help individuals plan for retirement. This approach is comparable to what actuaries do for pension plans and is the basis for the Actuarial Approach advocated in this website.
In his November 22 article, "Is Your Retirement Fully Funded," Robert Powell says:
"If you want to get a sense how best to generate income in retirement, consider doing what corporate pension plans do. Determine the “funded status” of your personal retirement plan."
In his guest article in The Retirement Café, Michael Lonier says:
"The household balance sheet, not portfolio theory, is the foundation of personal financial management, anywhere in the lifecycle. A solid understanding of the household balance sheet provides the basis for a reasonable and practical way to solve the puzzle of how to best use household resources to fund retirement or reach other goals."
Finally, as discussed in our post of November 16, a recent survey by Russell Investments concluded that not enough Financial Advisors were using "math and science" to develop spending budgets for their clients and should be periodically comparing the client's assets with the client's liability (the present value of the future withdrawals from the accumulated assets) similar to how actuaries measure the funded status of pension plans (which coincidentally is the basis for the approach recommended in this website).
The Actuarial Approach for determining a spending budget in retirement matches current personal assets with the retiree's liabilities, where such liabilities are defined as the present value of level real dollar spending over the retiree's expected lifetime. The spreadsheet tools included in this website not only determine liabilities based on these constraints, but can be used to determine liabilities under other constraints. For example, if a retiree determined that she could spend $75,000 per year, but wanted to know the liability associated with her "essential" level of spending of $50,000 per year, she could use a trial and error process to determine what level of accumulated savings produced a spending budget of $50,000 per annum. That amount would be her liability for essential expenses. Similarly, as discussed in our previous post, individuals close to retirement can use the spreadsheet tools (and the trial and error process) to determine what level of accumulated savings (or liability) will produce their desired level of retirement income.
In his November 22 article, "Is Your Retirement Fully Funded," Robert Powell says:
"If you want to get a sense how best to generate income in retirement, consider doing what corporate pension plans do. Determine the “funded status” of your personal retirement plan."
In his guest article in The Retirement Café, Michael Lonier says:
"The household balance sheet, not portfolio theory, is the foundation of personal financial management, anywhere in the lifecycle. A solid understanding of the household balance sheet provides the basis for a reasonable and practical way to solve the puzzle of how to best use household resources to fund retirement or reach other goals."
Finally, as discussed in our post of November 16, a recent survey by Russell Investments concluded that not enough Financial Advisors were using "math and science" to develop spending budgets for their clients and should be periodically comparing the client's assets with the client's liability (the present value of the future withdrawals from the accumulated assets) similar to how actuaries measure the funded status of pension plans (which coincidentally is the basis for the approach recommended in this website).
The Actuarial Approach for determining a spending budget in retirement matches current personal assets with the retiree's liabilities, where such liabilities are defined as the present value of level real dollar spending over the retiree's expected lifetime. The spreadsheet tools included in this website not only determine liabilities based on these constraints, but can be used to determine liabilities under other constraints. For example, if a retiree determined that she could spend $75,000 per year, but wanted to know the liability associated with her "essential" level of spending of $50,000 per year, she could use a trial and error process to determine what level of accumulated savings produced a spending budget of $50,000 per annum. That amount would be her liability for essential expenses. Similarly, as discussed in our previous post, individuals close to retirement can use the spreadsheet tools (and the trial and error process) to determine what level of accumulated savings (or liability) will produce their desired level of retirement income.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
So You Think You Are Financially Prepared to Retire? Use our Spreadsheet Tools to Test
Generally the focus of this website is to help individuals who are already retired establish an annual spending budget. From time to time, however, I will venture into the "how much do I need to retire" side of the retirement challenge. This post is aimed at individuals who are close to retirement but are unsure of whether they have sufficient financial assets to meet their needs throughout retirement.
This exercise is very similar to what I wrote about in my August 31 post--Managing Your Spending in Retirement--It's Not Rocket Science, except the first step in testing to see whether you are financially prepared to retire is to determine your spending needs in retirement. Generally this is done by looking at your normal expenses for a year, subtracting expenses that you don't expect to have in retirement (such as Social Security taxes and work-related expenses) and adding expenses you do expect to incur in retirement (such as increased travel and leisure expenses). Don't forget to factor in taxes that you will need to pay in retirement.
The second step in the process is to determine your total expected income for a year from all sources, such as Social Security, accumulated savings, pensions, annuities, earnings from part-time work and other sources of income. This is where the spreadsheet tools available on this website come into play. If you are not going to defer commencement of your Social Security benefit, use the "Excluding Social Security V 2.0" spreadsheet and add in your estimated Social Security benefit (and any other fully inflation indexed annuity benefit and expected earnings from employment) to the total spendable amount. If you do plan on deferring your Social Security benefit, use the "Social Security Bridge" spreadsheet. Note that for this step you may wish to exclude some of your accumulated assets, such as home equity or other assets, on the theory that such assets will be available for unexpected (or lumpy) expenses in retirement. I suggest that you input the assumptions we recommend in addition to your specific data.
The third step in the process is to compare the results of the second step with the first step to see if the two numbers line up. If the result of the second step is significantly lower than the result of step one, you may not be financially ready to retire. If you are not as conservative as I am, you can input higher investment return assumptions and/or lower inflation assumptions to see how these changes can affect your expected annual income. But remember that there are no guarantees when it comes to expected income from accumulated savings and the more liberal (or wishful) you make the assumptions, the more likelihood that future real spending will have to be reduced.
Normally at this point in my posts I provide an example of how this test might work. I'm not going to do that this time. Having recently read the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn", I'm going to encourage you to kick the tires on these spreadsheets. Take a few minutes to crunch your own numbers. You'll find it a worthwhile exercise.
This exercise is very similar to what I wrote about in my August 31 post--Managing Your Spending in Retirement--It's Not Rocket Science, except the first step in testing to see whether you are financially prepared to retire is to determine your spending needs in retirement. Generally this is done by looking at your normal expenses for a year, subtracting expenses that you don't expect to have in retirement (such as Social Security taxes and work-related expenses) and adding expenses you do expect to incur in retirement (such as increased travel and leisure expenses). Don't forget to factor in taxes that you will need to pay in retirement.
The second step in the process is to determine your total expected income for a year from all sources, such as Social Security, accumulated savings, pensions, annuities, earnings from part-time work and other sources of income. This is where the spreadsheet tools available on this website come into play. If you are not going to defer commencement of your Social Security benefit, use the "Excluding Social Security V 2.0" spreadsheet and add in your estimated Social Security benefit (and any other fully inflation indexed annuity benefit and expected earnings from employment) to the total spendable amount. If you do plan on deferring your Social Security benefit, use the "Social Security Bridge" spreadsheet. Note that for this step you may wish to exclude some of your accumulated assets, such as home equity or other assets, on the theory that such assets will be available for unexpected (or lumpy) expenses in retirement. I suggest that you input the assumptions we recommend in addition to your specific data.
The third step in the process is to compare the results of the second step with the first step to see if the two numbers line up. If the result of the second step is significantly lower than the result of step one, you may not be financially ready to retire. If you are not as conservative as I am, you can input higher investment return assumptions and/or lower inflation assumptions to see how these changes can affect your expected annual income. But remember that there are no guarantees when it comes to expected income from accumulated savings and the more liberal (or wishful) you make the assumptions, the more likelihood that future real spending will have to be reduced.
Normally at this point in my posts I provide an example of how this test might work. I'm not going to do that this time. Having recently read the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn", I'm going to encourage you to kick the tires on these spreadsheets. Take a few minutes to crunch your own numbers. You'll find it a worthwhile exercise.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Does Your Financial Advisor Develop Your Annual Spending Budget Based on How Much Assets You Have and How Long You Might Live?
Lets assume that you and your Financial Advisor meet approximately annually to determine your spending budget for the year. If you don't actually have a Financial Advisor, then you and/or your spouse are acting as your own Financial Advisor. In a recent survey of Financial Advisors by Russell Investments, 234 Financial Advisors were asked how they develop spending budgets for their clients near or in retirement. 25% responded that they based their approach on levels of pre-retirement spending, 22% indicated that they used a rule of thumb like the 4% Rule, 19% indicated that they used some variation of the Bucket Strategy, 16% indicated that they compared assets with future liabilities and 18% indicated some other approach.
The Russell Investments survey concluded that not enough Financial Advisors were using "math and science" to develop spending budgets for their clients and should be periodically comparing the client's assets with the client's liability (the present value of the future withdrawals from the accumulated assets) similar to how actuaries measure the funded status of pension plans (which coincidentally is the basis for the approach recommended in this website).
Along the same line, in an interview for Advisor Perspectives, Nobel Laureate Bill Sharpe provided his views on developing spending budgets and the 4% Rule (and other Safe Withdrawal Rate Rules):
"What you spend should depend upon (1) how much you’ve got and (2) how long you think you might live, or the range of possible lengths of life. The 4% rule is fine on both fronts on day one. For example – you’ve got $1 million and you’re 65. Spend $40,000. This may be just fine.
After the initial year, however, what you spend with this rule has nothing to do with how much you have, or for that matter, how long you expect to live. Most importantly, it doesn’t depend how much you have at the moment. Any rational person would say, “What you spend ought to depend upon how much money you have.” Isn’t that self evident? A rule that doesn’t do that after year one doesn’t make any sense. And this should be the end of the discussion. But we see such an approach advocated in many places."
Finally, Dirk Cotton provided similar views in his entertaining blog of October 27,2014 entitled "Spherical Cows." Commenting on the use of Safe Withdrawal Rate approaches, Dirk said,
"One of my favorite Spherical Cows is the one used to calculate sustainable withdrawal rates. SWR models assume that a mythical investor will continue to spend the same amount of money each year from savings, even after it becomes obvious that he or she is about to deplete their retirement savings. The models take a percentage, say 4%, of initial portfolio value and subtract that fixed dollar amount ($4,000 from a $100,000 portfolio in this case) from the portfolio balance every year, counting the number of years before the portfolio is depleted.
Many financial writers argue that no one really "does it that way", meaning everyone adjusts spending based on their remaining portfolio balance instead of spending a flat amount, but I have two responses to that. If no one does it that way, then everyone in the financial press should stop saying that you can do it that way. And second, the SWR models predict outcomes for you only if you do "do it that way". (Operations Research guys say that a model is predictive only to the extent that its policies are followed.) The SWR results aren't predictive if you do something else, like adjust spending to portfolio value changes – which apparently is what everyone is actually doing."
Bottom Line: If you act as your own Financial Advisor, you should spend the time to learn the pros and cons of alternative withdrawal strategies. The Actuarial Approach recommended in this website uses established actuarial principles that consider how much assets you have each year and the expected payout period. If you do work with a Financial Advisor, you should compare the budget recommended by your Financial Advisor with the budget developed using the Actuarial Approach and discuss any significant differences with your Financial Advisor. If you are a Financial Advisor for others, you may wish to consider employing the math in the Actuarial Approach for your clients to see how it compares with whatever method you are currently using.
The Russell Investments survey concluded that not enough Financial Advisors were using "math and science" to develop spending budgets for their clients and should be periodically comparing the client's assets with the client's liability (the present value of the future withdrawals from the accumulated assets) similar to how actuaries measure the funded status of pension plans (which coincidentally is the basis for the approach recommended in this website).
Along the same line, in an interview for Advisor Perspectives, Nobel Laureate Bill Sharpe provided his views on developing spending budgets and the 4% Rule (and other Safe Withdrawal Rate Rules):
"What you spend should depend upon (1) how much you’ve got and (2) how long you think you might live, or the range of possible lengths of life. The 4% rule is fine on both fronts on day one. For example – you’ve got $1 million and you’re 65. Spend $40,000. This may be just fine.
After the initial year, however, what you spend with this rule has nothing to do with how much you have, or for that matter, how long you expect to live. Most importantly, it doesn’t depend how much you have at the moment. Any rational person would say, “What you spend ought to depend upon how much money you have.” Isn’t that self evident? A rule that doesn’t do that after year one doesn’t make any sense. And this should be the end of the discussion. But we see such an approach advocated in many places."
Finally, Dirk Cotton provided similar views in his entertaining blog of October 27,2014 entitled "Spherical Cows." Commenting on the use of Safe Withdrawal Rate approaches, Dirk said,
"One of my favorite Spherical Cows is the one used to calculate sustainable withdrawal rates. SWR models assume that a mythical investor will continue to spend the same amount of money each year from savings, even after it becomes obvious that he or she is about to deplete their retirement savings. The models take a percentage, say 4%, of initial portfolio value and subtract that fixed dollar amount ($4,000 from a $100,000 portfolio in this case) from the portfolio balance every year, counting the number of years before the portfolio is depleted.
Many financial writers argue that no one really "does it that way", meaning everyone adjusts spending based on their remaining portfolio balance instead of spending a flat amount, but I have two responses to that. If no one does it that way, then everyone in the financial press should stop saying that you can do it that way. And second, the SWR models predict outcomes for you only if you do "do it that way". (Operations Research guys say that a model is predictive only to the extent that its policies are followed.) The SWR results aren't predictive if you do something else, like adjust spending to portfolio value changes – which apparently is what everyone is actually doing."
Bottom Line: If you act as your own Financial Advisor, you should spend the time to learn the pros and cons of alternative withdrawal strategies. The Actuarial Approach recommended in this website uses established actuarial principles that consider how much assets you have each year and the expected payout period. If you do work with a Financial Advisor, you should compare the budget recommended by your Financial Advisor with the budget developed using the Actuarial Approach and discuss any significant differences with your Financial Advisor. If you are a Financial Advisor for others, you may wish to consider employing the math in the Actuarial Approach for your clients to see how it compares with whatever method you are currently using.
Friday, November 14, 2014
100th Post--Nice Write-Up of the Actuarial Approach in the Toronto Globe and Mail
Time for a brief celebration! This is our 100th post in our ongoing effort to help retirees develop a spend-down strategy for their self-managed assets as part of an overall process of developing an annual spending budget in retirement. As we approach the end of 2014, I remain just as convinced as I was in 2010 with post #1 that the Actuarial Approach recommended in this website represents a better systematic withdrawal strategy than most approaches that are commonly used.
And what better way to celebrate than to have a reporter say some nice things about what we are doing. Read Ian McGugan's recent article in the Globe and Mail.
Mr. McGugan took such an interest in the spreadsheet tool recommended in this website for determining a spending budget in retirement (Excluding Social Security V 2.0) that he kindly offered to write a "less actuarial" explanation of it. Click here to see Mr. McGugan's nice write-up. Thanks Ian.
Our 100th Post celebration must also include special thanks to my buddy, Kin Chan, for his assistance with managing the website and pointing out all the sentences that don't make any sense.
And what better way to celebrate than to have a reporter say some nice things about what we are doing. Read Ian McGugan's recent article in the Globe and Mail.
Mr. McGugan took such an interest in the spreadsheet tool recommended in this website for determining a spending budget in retirement (Excluding Social Security V 2.0) that he kindly offered to write a "less actuarial" explanation of it. Click here to see Mr. McGugan's nice write-up. Thanks Ian.
Our 100th Post celebration must also include special thanks to my buddy, Kin Chan, for his assistance with managing the website and pointing out all the sentences that don't make any sense.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Revisiting the Recommended Smoothing Algorithm
I first proposed a recommended smoothing algorithm for The Actuarial Approach in my post of October 11, 2013. The purpose of the recommended smoothing algorithm was to balance the desire to have relatively constant real dollar budgets from year to year with the need to keep spending budgets reasonably on track with the "actuarial value" determined using the applicable spreadsheet from this website (generally Excluding Social Security V 2.0), recommended assumptions and the retiree's actual data as of the beginning of each year.
In general terms the recommended smoothing algorithm involves taking the budget amount from the previous year, increasing that amount by inflation (the increase in CPI) for the previous year and making sure that the resulting value is not more than 110% of and not less than 90% of that year's actuarial value. If the resulting value falls within the corridor, the inflation adjusted value is used to develop the budget for the year. If the value falls above or below the corridor limit, the applicable corridor value is used in the budget calculation.
Recently, in a conversation with Ian McGugan, reporter for the Globe and Mail in Toronto, Mr. McGugan pointed out that I wasn't terribly specific about what budget amount was being used in this smoothing calculation. Mr. McGugan (a bright guy) correctly pointed out that in the various examples contained in my website, I had inconsistently used several different amounts for the previous year's budget amount for this calculation.
I will readily admit that there was more art than science involved in developing this smoothing algorithm. For example, I don't know whether some or all retirees who may use the Actuarial Approach would be better served with a 12% or 8% corridor. Perhaps someone like Wade Pfau or some other retirement academician can utilize Monte Carlo modeling to develop an optimal corridor. Similar arguments can be made with respect to the budget (or portion of the budget) that should be subject to the corridor.
If the retiree has an immediate defined benefit pension benefit or life insurance annuity as a retirement income source, she has at least three choices with respect to how the recommended algorithm can be applied:
Personally, I would prefer that the spending budget stay reasonably close to the actuarial value, so I will recommend that the 90% to 100% corridor be determined using the portion of the budget attributable to accumulated savings plus the pension/annuity rather than using the entire budget including Social Security, as it will produce a somewhat smaller corridor range, all other things being equal.
As a result of Mr. McGuggan's excellent suggestion to try not to confuse readers when possible, I have revised the examples in the June, 2014 article "Using the Actuarial Approach to Determine Your Annual Spending Budget in Retirement" to reflect the more specific recommended smoothing algorithm above.
I thank Mr. McGuggan for his feedback and encourage other readers to submit their suggestions for improvements to this website.
In general terms the recommended smoothing algorithm involves taking the budget amount from the previous year, increasing that amount by inflation (the increase in CPI) for the previous year and making sure that the resulting value is not more than 110% of and not less than 90% of that year's actuarial value. If the resulting value falls within the corridor, the inflation adjusted value is used to develop the budget for the year. If the value falls above or below the corridor limit, the applicable corridor value is used in the budget calculation.
Recently, in a conversation with Ian McGugan, reporter for the Globe and Mail in Toronto, Mr. McGugan pointed out that I wasn't terribly specific about what budget amount was being used in this smoothing calculation. Mr. McGugan (a bright guy) correctly pointed out that in the various examples contained in my website, I had inconsistently used several different amounts for the previous year's budget amount for this calculation.
I will readily admit that there was more art than science involved in developing this smoothing algorithm. For example, I don't know whether some or all retirees who may use the Actuarial Approach would be better served with a 12% or 8% corridor. Perhaps someone like Wade Pfau or some other retirement academician can utilize Monte Carlo modeling to develop an optimal corridor. Similar arguments can be made with respect to the budget (or portion of the budget) that should be subject to the corridor.
If the retiree has an immediate defined benefit pension benefit or life insurance annuity as a retirement income source, she has at least three choices with respect to how the recommended algorithm can be applied:
- to the portion of the budget attributable to accumulated savings only
- to the portion of the budget attributable to accumulated savings plus the pension/annuity, or
- to the total budget, including income from Social Security
Personally, I would prefer that the spending budget stay reasonably close to the actuarial value, so I will recommend that the 90% to 100% corridor be determined using the portion of the budget attributable to accumulated savings plus the pension/annuity rather than using the entire budget including Social Security, as it will produce a somewhat smaller corridor range, all other things being equal.
As a result of Mr. McGuggan's excellent suggestion to try not to confuse readers when possible, I have revised the examples in the June, 2014 article "Using the Actuarial Approach to Determine Your Annual Spending Budget in Retirement" to reflect the more specific recommended smoothing algorithm above.
I thank Mr. McGuggan for his feedback and encourage other readers to submit their suggestions for improvements to this website.
Friday, October 24, 2014
You Can Spend it Now or You (or Your Heirs) Can Spend it Later
The title of this post is a re-working of the saying used by the mechanic in the old Fram Oil Filter TV commercials. His famous line was, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." A similar principle applies to spending your accumulated savings--assets you spend today will reduce the amounts available to you (or your heirs) tomorrow and visa versa. The trick, of course, is to figure out the best way to meet your spending objectives, including making your money last your lifetime. This difficult "balancing act" is what this website is all about.
It is also important to remember that most systematic withdrawal strategies produce a spending budget. As with any other budget, you are free to deviate from the budget and spend what you feel is an appropriate amount. Some systematic withdrawal strategies (like the Actuarial Approach recommended in this website) automatically adjust for such deviations. Other approaches may not.
As promised in my post of October 9, this post will discuss the systematic withdrawal approach suggested by David Zolt in his recent Journal of Financial Planning article. Readers can also find more details about his approach in his website.
In summary, Mr. Zolt uses a Hybrid safe withdrawal/actuarial approach. He incorporates Monte Carlo modeling using historical returns from 1926-2013 and then uses a deterministic approach similar to the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet in this website (which he calls the Target Percentage Test) to monitor whether spending remains on track during retirement. In general, if the proposed withdrawal in any year, measured as a percentage of remaining accumulated assets, falls below the Target Percentage, Mr. Zolt's approach would require the retiree forgo that year's cost of living increase. His most recent article proposes another alternative to forgoing the entire cost of living increase if the test is failed.
The first case study in Mr. Zolt's recent article describes how his approach could work for a couple, both age 63 with $650,000 in accumulated retirement assets, total Social Security benefits of $3,000 per month and a fixed dollar $1,000 per month benefit from a pension plan. Based on his Monte Carlo analysis, Mr. Zolt determines that this couple has a "superb" chance of making the money last with an initial withdrawal rate of 5.7% if they are willing to forgo cost-of-living increases whenever the proposed withdrawal for the year measured as a percentage of accumulated assets exceeds the Target Percentage for this couple. By comparison, if we input this couple's data in our Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet and use our recommended assumptions , we would get an initial withdrawal rate of 3.57%. There are two reasons why Mr. Zolt's initial withdrawal rate is much higher than ours for the same couple: 1) We use different assumptions for future experience and 2) The Actuarial Approach attempts to keep total retirement income (including income from the fixed dollar pension) constant from year to year in real dollars.
Using Mr. Zolt's Target Percentage spreadsheet, we can determine that if payments are to last 32 years and increase by 3% per annum, the couple's assets must earn a minimum of 7.7% per annum. Tables 1 and 2 below compare spending budgets every five years produced by Mr. Zolt's approach (assuming the target percentage is determined using 7.7% investment return, 3% cost of living increases and payment for 32 years) vs. the Actuarial Approach (using recommended assumptions) assuming future experience is either 5% investment and 3% inflation (Table 1) or 7.7% investment return and 3% inflation (Table 2). Table 3 compares spending budgets assuming future experience of 7.7% per annum and 3% inflation, but changes the assumptions used under the Actuarial Approach to 7.7% investment return and 3% inflation while Table 4 assumes future experience of 5% per annum and 3% inflation, but the assumptions used under the Actuarial Approach are changed to 5% investment return and 0% inflation. Under all four tables, the retired couple is assumed to spend exactly the spending budget under either approach each year.
Under the assumptions for future experience in Table 1, spending budgets decline significantly in real terms under the Target Percentage Approach. The couple's money does, however, last the entire 32 years. Under the Actuarial Approach and recommended assumptions, spending budgets remain constant from year to year in real dollar terms. Under the assumptions for future experience in Table 2, spending budgets decline somewhat under the Target Percentage Approach as the approach does not adjust spending from accumulated savings to make up for inflation erosion of the fixed dollar pension benefit. Under the Actuarial Approach (using recommended assumptions), the more favorable investment experience produces significant increases in the spending budget in later years.
The purpose of Tables 3 and 4 is to illustrate that similar results can be achieved under the Actuarial Approach by varying assumptions used to determine the annual spending budgets from the recommended assumptions.
Which approach is right for you? There is no easy answer to this question. Both approaches are dynamic in that spending budgets may need to be increased or decreased during retirement since both approaches involve annual checking to see how last year's spending budget increased with inflation compares with an actuarially determined target. The Actuarial Approach using recommended assumptions assumes future investment returns will be 2% real, while Mr. Zolt's approach uses a real rate of return closer to 4.7%. His approach also does not consider the effects of inflation on other fixed dollar income (such as pensions or annuity contracts) or amounts desired to be left to heirs. There is nothing mathematically superior about either approach. While Mr. Zolt's approach can be made more conservative by using more conservative target percentages, his reliance on historical rates of return makes his approach less conservative (more likely to involve decreasing real dollar spending budgets in future years) than the Actuarial Approach (which tends to tie investment return assumptions more closely to interest rates inherent in current immediate annuity contracts). This may be ok for some retirees, as long as they understand that higher amounts spent early in retirement mean smaller spending budgets later, all things being equal. Other retirees, however, may be less concerned if the spending budget increases in later years as a result of more favorable than assumed experience. Being a retired actuary, I tend to favor the more conservative approach. But, in the end, the bottom line of this post is the same as its title, and it is up to you to determine how conservative you want to be in determining your spending budget (and your actual spending) from year to year.
It is also important to remember that most systematic withdrawal strategies produce a spending budget. As with any other budget, you are free to deviate from the budget and spend what you feel is an appropriate amount. Some systematic withdrawal strategies (like the Actuarial Approach recommended in this website) automatically adjust for such deviations. Other approaches may not.
As promised in my post of October 9, this post will discuss the systematic withdrawal approach suggested by David Zolt in his recent Journal of Financial Planning article. Readers can also find more details about his approach in his website.
In summary, Mr. Zolt uses a Hybrid safe withdrawal/actuarial approach. He incorporates Monte Carlo modeling using historical returns from 1926-2013 and then uses a deterministic approach similar to the Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet in this website (which he calls the Target Percentage Test) to monitor whether spending remains on track during retirement. In general, if the proposed withdrawal in any year, measured as a percentage of remaining accumulated assets, falls below the Target Percentage, Mr. Zolt's approach would require the retiree forgo that year's cost of living increase. His most recent article proposes another alternative to forgoing the entire cost of living increase if the test is failed.
The first case study in Mr. Zolt's recent article describes how his approach could work for a couple, both age 63 with $650,000 in accumulated retirement assets, total Social Security benefits of $3,000 per month and a fixed dollar $1,000 per month benefit from a pension plan. Based on his Monte Carlo analysis, Mr. Zolt determines that this couple has a "superb" chance of making the money last with an initial withdrawal rate of 5.7% if they are willing to forgo cost-of-living increases whenever the proposed withdrawal for the year measured as a percentage of accumulated assets exceeds the Target Percentage for this couple. By comparison, if we input this couple's data in our Excluding Social Security V 2.0 spreadsheet and use our recommended assumptions , we would get an initial withdrawal rate of 3.57%. There are two reasons why Mr. Zolt's initial withdrawal rate is much higher than ours for the same couple: 1) We use different assumptions for future experience and 2) The Actuarial Approach attempts to keep total retirement income (including income from the fixed dollar pension) constant from year to year in real dollars.
Using Mr. Zolt's Target Percentage spreadsheet, we can determine that if payments are to last 32 years and increase by 3% per annum, the couple's assets must earn a minimum of 7.7% per annum. Tables 1 and 2 below compare spending budgets every five years produced by Mr. Zolt's approach (assuming the target percentage is determined using 7.7% investment return, 3% cost of living increases and payment for 32 years) vs. the Actuarial Approach (using recommended assumptions) assuming future experience is either 5% investment and 3% inflation (Table 1) or 7.7% investment return and 3% inflation (Table 2). Table 3 compares spending budgets assuming future experience of 7.7% per annum and 3% inflation, but changes the assumptions used under the Actuarial Approach to 7.7% investment return and 3% inflation while Table 4 assumes future experience of 5% per annum and 3% inflation, but the assumptions used under the Actuarial Approach are changed to 5% investment return and 0% inflation. Under all four tables, the retired couple is assumed to spend exactly the spending budget under either approach each year.
Under the assumptions for future experience in Table 1, spending budgets decline significantly in real terms under the Target Percentage Approach. The couple's money does, however, last the entire 32 years. Under the Actuarial Approach and recommended assumptions, spending budgets remain constant from year to year in real dollar terms. Under the assumptions for future experience in Table 2, spending budgets decline somewhat under the Target Percentage Approach as the approach does not adjust spending from accumulated savings to make up for inflation erosion of the fixed dollar pension benefit. Under the Actuarial Approach (using recommended assumptions), the more favorable investment experience produces significant increases in the spending budget in later years.
The purpose of Tables 3 and 4 is to illustrate that similar results can be achieved under the Actuarial Approach by varying assumptions used to determine the annual spending budgets from the recommended assumptions.
Which approach is right for you? There is no easy answer to this question. Both approaches are dynamic in that spending budgets may need to be increased or decreased during retirement since both approaches involve annual checking to see how last year's spending budget increased with inflation compares with an actuarially determined target. The Actuarial Approach using recommended assumptions assumes future investment returns will be 2% real, while Mr. Zolt's approach uses a real rate of return closer to 4.7%. His approach also does not consider the effects of inflation on other fixed dollar income (such as pensions or annuity contracts) or amounts desired to be left to heirs. There is nothing mathematically superior about either approach. While Mr. Zolt's approach can be made more conservative by using more conservative target percentages, his reliance on historical rates of return makes his approach less conservative (more likely to involve decreasing real dollar spending budgets in future years) than the Actuarial Approach (which tends to tie investment return assumptions more closely to interest rates inherent in current immediate annuity contracts). This may be ok for some retirees, as long as they understand that higher amounts spent early in retirement mean smaller spending budgets later, all things being equal. Other retirees, however, may be less concerned if the spending budget increases in later years as a result of more favorable than assumed experience. Being a retired actuary, I tend to favor the more conservative approach. But, in the end, the bottom line of this post is the same as its title, and it is up to you to determine how conservative you want to be in determining your spending budget (and your actual spending) from year to year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)