Most of your investing life you and your adviser (if you have one) are focused on wealth accumulation. But, we tend to forget, eventually the whole idea of this long process of delayed gratification is to actually spend this money! That’s decumulation as opposed to wealth accumulation. This stage may also involve downsizing from larger homes to smaller ones or condos, moving to the country or otherwise simplifying your life and jettisoning possessions that may tie you down.
Dealing with Longevity Risk is a “hot topic,” according to someone who’s an expert on the topic. Read this “as told to” interview with Moshe Milevsky, the prolific financial author and finance professor at the Schulich School of Business.
The risk is that as people go from savers (Wealth Accumulation) to relying on retirement income (Decumulation), there’s always the danger of running out of money before you run out of life.
There is of course a solution called annuities but for some reason both investors and their advisors aren’t yet flocking to them. This may be because it involves losing control over your capital to an insurance company and is an irrevocable decision, at least for the portion of your capital being annuitized. Another reason is it often means that capital won’t be available to one’s heirs, depending on the options chosen.
Interest rates low, but mortality credits on annuities become important as you age
Even so, Milevsky tells the site that “single premium income annuities are often under-rated as a retirement planning tool.” Yes, interest rates are low but Milevsky argues that as you get older, mortality credits become relatively more important. In the end, it’s all about peace of mind.
In any case, no one ever said you have to annuitize ALL your capital. Read Milevsky’s piece and you may conclude that at least some of your capital might be annuitized at some point.
MoneySense.ca today is running my column on Extreme Early Retirement from the November issue. It looks at the phenomenon championed by super-frugal savers like Mr. Money Moustache and Jacob Lund Fisker of so-called Extreme Early Retirement.
The idea is to be self-sufficient, do without, live in a small home, eliminate frivolous purchases like cars or furniture and save like crazy for five or ten years: and we’re not talking the typical savings rates of 10 or 15% of a paycheque: more like 50% or more.
Here’s a blog I wrote for MoneySense.ca before the Hub launched, housed in what it now terms the MoneySense Findependence Archives. It seemed to resonate so I’ve repurposed it here, adding the cover shot of the book from which it’s drawn: You Can Retire Sooner Than You Think.
It deals with an interesting rule of thumb that most retirees and would-be retirees would do well to adopt. Developed by U.S. financial planner Wes Moss, it’s called the 1,000-Bucks-a-Month Rule. It means that for every thousand dollars in monthly income you want in retirement, you need to have saved $240,000. Continue Reading…
My column in this weekend’s Financial Post looks at the collision course between Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to Old Age Security.
This is a followup to a curious strategy unveiled by Mornell Shapeau senior actuary Fred Vettese a few weeks ago in the Post. I also touched on it in a subsequent MoneySense blog. (Note the comments there).
Vettese showed how even relatively rich couples can contort their finances so they too can collect GIS for three years: generating over $60,000 of tax-free income between age 67 and 70. The furor over this gambit suggests either GIS or TFSA rules may eventually have to be tweaked as a result.
The strategy consists of postponing receipt of employer pensions, CPP benefits and RRSP income until age 70. Addressing younger people now 40, Vettese envisaged taking OAS and GIS at age 67 while drawing on joint TFSAs worth $320,000.
Normally, the wealthy don’t even consider the possibility of collecting GIS because of the low clawback threshold. In fact, the truly rich are resigned not only to not qualifying for GIS but realize even their OAS may get clawed back, in whole or in part.
Hypothetical scenario still far away?
Asked about this, the Department of Finance said it was a hypothetical scenario still far away, but that “the tax system is continuously under review to ensure it is as fair and as current as possible.”
Advocates for low-income seniors quoted in the article say they should avoid RRSPs and invest in TFSAs instead, since they will result in neither tax nor OAS or GIS clawbacks. And they suggest some simple rule changes to the TFSA or GIS that would nip this “end-run for the wealthy” in the bud.
Those who are wealthy may not wish to go to the trouble Vettese describes to get three years of GIS payments (GIS is however tax-free!). But it may be wise to keep maxing out TFSA contributions while you still can, including for your children 18 or over.
Here’s my latest MoneySense blog, based on a Fidelity media briefing on Monday. Click on the red type to go directly to the piece at MoneySense.
For one-stop shopping and archival purposes, here it is again below, with different photos and subheads.
Peter Drake, Fidelity Canada
By Jonathan Chevreau
You’re probably going to live longer than you think but it if you’re worried about outliving your money, planning to work in retirement is not a panacea, warns Toronto-based Fidelity Investments Canada ULC.
At a media briefing on Monday, Fidelity Canada’s Peter Drake, vice president, Retirement & Economics Research urged those still saving for retirement that they have to take more individual responsibility for their future after work. “You’re going to live longer than you think,” he said, citing steadily rising Life Expectancy statistics going back to 1921. Someone born in 1921 would have a Life Expectancy of about 58, a figure that passed 70 for someone born in the mid 1950s and which passed 80 shortly after the new millennium.
Can an “Encore Career” bridge the gap?
Certainly, the latest data from the 2014 Fidelity Retirement Survey released at the event suggests those falling short of their retirement savings goals are counting on some kind of paying “encore career” to make up the difference. While only 20% of those already retired plan to rely on income from a full-time or part-time job, fully 47% of those still in the workforce expect to have some form of a paying “encore career,” said Drake.
Many will rely on Savings and Housing
Non-retirees also put their hopes into Savings and Housing as a way to make ends meet in Retirement. While only 58% of current retirees say they will rely on income generated from savings in an RRSP or RRIF, fully two thirds of non-retirees (66%) plan to do so. Similarly, while only 36% of retirees believe their home equity will help boost their retirement income, half of non-retirees are counting on it.
Clearly, something has to give and that something appears to be the fond notion that people can just keep working past the traditional retirement age of 65. “Planning to work in retirement is not a retirement plan,” Drake cautioned.
Saying you’ll “just keep working” is of course easily said. Indeed, I’ve given that advice to anyone who’s not quite sure whether they have enough money to retire or not. As I quipped on the radio the other day, it’s better to arrive at the train station five minutes early than five minutes late: similarly, when it comes to saving for retirement, it’s better to oversave than undersave. Your children and the government will thank you for over-saving.
“Just Keep Working” not always possible
Unfortunately, Fidelity’s research shows you can’t count on working in retirement. The poll of some 1,400 Canadians found that of those not working, fully one in five retirees would like to work if they could. However, 15% can’t find a job and 23% say employers aren’t interested in employing retirees.
Then there are health and health care issues. Drake says 38% of retirees not working have health issues that prevent them from doing so. And even for those who are themselves healthy, 12% have to care for another family member. Out-of-pocket health care costs are an important consideration for retirees, Drake said. Even though this is Canada, 30% of health costs are not funded publicly, putting more pressure on finances the older you get. Citing per capital public health care expenditures, the big blips are right after birth and then after 65. The per capita annual expenditure is well under $5,000 from age one to age 64 but hits $5,828 between 65 and 69, passes $10,000 between 75 and 79 and really starts to spike after age 85 – past $20,000 –hitting a peak of more than $24,000 after age 90.
Drake noted that generally speaking, women can expect to outlive men, but the longer they do, the more the problems of dementia – especially Alzheimer’s – can arise.
Challenges of Longevity
Another byproduct of extended longevity is that inflation really starts to bite into the purchasing power of a typical retirement nest egg. While inflation has been low and consistent since the early 1990s, it could rise in the future, Drake warned. And even low inflation can reduce purchasing power. A nest egg of $50,000 today would have the purchasing power of just $30,479 25 years from now even with relatively benign inflation of 2%. If inflation were 3%, the purchasing power of that $50,000 would fall to less than half 25 years later: $23,882. And at 4% inflation, it would have the spending punch of just $18,757.
Posted By 
