Decumulate & Downsize

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.

Retired Money: Taking RetireMint for a test spin

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published: you can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline here: What is RetireMint? The Canadian online platform shows retirement planning isn’t just about finances.

We provided a sneak preview of RetireMint late in August, which you can read here: Retirement needs a new definition. That was provided by RetireMint founder Ryan Donovan.

The MoneySense column goes into more depth, passing on my initial experiences using the program, as well as highlighting a few social media comments on the product and some user experiences provided by RetireMint.

RetireMint (with a capital M, followed by a small-case letter I rather than an e) is a Canadian retirement tool that just might affect how you plan for Retirement. There’s not a lot of risk as you can try it for free. One thing I liked once I gave it a spin is that it isn’t just another retirement app that tells you how much money you need to retire. It spends as much or more time on the softer aspects of Retirement in Canada: what you’re going to do with all that leisure time, travelling, part-time work, keeping your social networks intact and so on.

In that respect, the ‘beyond financial’ aspects of RetireMint remind me of a book I once co-authored with ex corporate banker Mike Drak: Victory Lap Retirement, or indeed my own financial novel Findependence Day. As I often used to explain, once you have enough money and reach your Financial Independence Day (Findependence), everything that happens thereafter can be characterized as your Victory Lap.

As Donovan puts it, this wider definition must “break free from the tethered association of solely financial planning.”

Donovan says roughly 8,000 Canadians will reach retirement every single week over the next 15 years. And yet more than 60% of them do not know their retirement date one year in advance, and more than a third will delay their retirement because they don’t have a plan in place.

Retirement not calendar date or amount in your bank account

Donovan says  “Retirement has become so synonymous with financial planning, and so associated with ‘old age,’ that they’re practically inseparable. Yet, in reality, retirement is a stage of life, not a date on the calendar, an amount in your bank account, and is certainly not a death sentence.” He doesn’t argue that financial planning is the keystone of retirement preparation, as “you won’t even be able to flirt with the idea of retiring without it.” But it’s much broader in scope than that. As he puts it, this wider definition must “break free from the tethered association of solely financial planning.” Continue Reading…

Now (and always) is the worst time to invest in bonds

Image courtesy AlainGuillot.com

By Alain Guillot

Special to Financial Independence Hub

With friends on a rainy day
With friends on a rainy day

Anytime anyone consults a financial advisor, two things typically occur:

  1. The financial advisor tends to recommend their “in-house” products, which often come with high management expense fees ranging from 2-3%
  2. They inquire about your age and then miraculously present a fund tailored to individuals in your age group.

We’ve discussed point #1 in previous posts. Financial advisors invariably promote funds with high expense fees because they receive kickbacks known as trailer fees, which constitute a significant portion of their income. However, it’s important to note that these trailer fees come out of your pocket. It is in the financial advisor’s best interest to consistently suggest products that offer the most generous commissions.

Despite the fact that there are numerous low-cost index funds and ETFs that might be the best options for their clients, financial advisers seldom recommend them because they do not generate commissions. The success of investment advis0rs often depends on their clients’ lack of knowledge.

As for point #2, they are equally inadequate. The typical formula for selecting a stock-and-bond portfolio is to subtract your age from 100%. This implies that if you are 30 years old, your portfolio should consist of 70% stocks and 30% bonds. If you are 50 years old, the recommended allocation is 50% stocks and 50% bonds, and so on.

Is age really the most significant factor? What if I am already a millionaire? What if I am struggling to pay my rent? What if I am in good health? What if I am in poor health? These factors seem to be overlooked, as financial advisers simply refer to tables provided by their employers and assign clients to predetermined brackets from their sales manuals.

Historically, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds as an investment, but investing in bonds can create a false sense of security. In reality, bonds offer reduced volatility, but less volatility does not equate to lower risk. Over the long term, bonds are not less risky than stocks; they are simply less volatile.

The truth is that the more bonds you hold in your portfolio, the more you limit your growth potential. Why would anyone sacrifice their potential for earnings simply because they are older? When you are older and in need of your money the most, that’s precisely when you would want your money to work its hardest for you. Continue Reading…

Retirement needs a new Definition

By Ryan Donovan

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Before we dive into this article, let’s play a quick game: a word association game. I’ll bet you a crisp $5 bill, or a shiny loonie for the more risk averse out there, that with three chances, I can guess the first word that pops into your head. Now, it has to be the first word, so no cheating. Ready, set… the word is ‘Retirement.

If you said ‘Retirement Income,’ ‘Retirement Savings’ or ‘Retirement Home,’ I’ll come to collect my winnings. If you said anything like ‘Travel,’ ‘Hobbies’ or ‘Exploration,  then good on you; I’ll send along an IOU.

The reason I felt so confident taking that bet is because when I tell people that I work in retirement planning, 99 out of 100 times, they assume that I work in financial services. The other time, people ask about senior living. Retirement has become so synonymous with financial planning, and so associated with ‘old age,’ that they’re practically inseparable. Yet, in reality, retirement is a stage of life, not a date on the calendar, an amount in your bank account, and is certainly not a death sentence.

One of our primary goals when creating our startup, RetireMint, was to reframe the national conversation around “what it means to retire,” which, at its core, requires redefining how Canadians prepare for retirement.

Now, I am not discounting the importance and necessity of a sound financial plan. After all, you are reading this in Financial Independence Hub … Yes, financial planning is the keystone of retirement preparation, as you won’t even be able to flirt with the idea of retiring without it. Yet, retirement planning must adopt a much wider definition and break free from the tethered association of solely financial planning.

Retirement should really be a time to enjoy the fruits of your hard labour:  a chapter that will hopefully span decades, fuelled by leisure, exploration, discovery and meaning.

Answering the ‘what, where and how’ of everything you want to see, do and accomplish in this next chapter requires conscious preparation in areas far beyond spreadsheets and bank statements. 

The industry paradigm is that you have about 8,000 days in retirement, or around 22 years. In each of those years, you will have more than 2,000 hours of new-found free time that would have been spent working throughout the majority of your life. Filling these thousands of hours with meaningful and purposeful activity is much more easily said than done.

The common approach to retirement planning (yes, we are now using the wider definition) has been to ‘punt the ball down the field’ and ‘cross that bridge when you get to it.’ Yet, we see time and time again that those who leave their lifestyle planning to their first day of retirement are the ones who have the hardest time transitioning into this next chapter.

The people who say, “I’ll never get tired of sipping Piña Coladas on a beach,” face the same fate as the ones who say “I can’t wait to golf every day.” While these may be dream activities for retirees, they ultimately see diminishing returns if they’re your only activities, because humans are funny creatures:  we need meaning and variation.

Despite its innocent demeanour, retirement has some dark, inconvenient truths: 

  • Ages 50-64, 65-84 and 85+ have the three highest suicide rates in North America, and in the last five years, we’ve seen a 38% increase in suicides among Baby Boomers.
  • Canadians over 65 have a divorce rate three times the national average.
  • Over 25% of older Canadians are socially isolated, which causes a 50% increased risk of dementia.
  • And, 77% of older Canadians live with at least two chronic illnesses or conditions.

It’s statistics like these that starkly highlight the importance of planning for your lifestyle, wellness and purpose, as well as the need for trusted resources to help with this planning. This was the a-ha moment that sparked our urgency to develop RetireMint.

RetireMint stemmed from empirical evidence showing that once people’s finances are at least on the right track, their primary concerns and conversations with their financial advisors shift far beyond the scope of their meetings. “What am I going to do with the grandkids?,” “Where am I going to travel?” “What happens when I lose my work insurance coverage?,” are just a few of the plethora of questions that popped up time and time again.

It’s fantastic that Canadians have this level of trust and comfort with their advisors, but the truth is that financial advisors are not equipped to answer all of these broader retirement inquiries, and they’ll be the first to admit it. It’s clear that this undue burden falls on the shoulders of financial professionals, but if not for them, who is going to provide the answers? Continue Reading…

Using Defensive Sector ETFs for the Canadian retirement portfolio

By Dale Roberts

Special to Financial Independence Hub

In a recent post we saw that the defensive sectors were twice as effective as a balanced portfolio moving through and beyond the great financial crisis. The financial crisis was the bank-failure-inspired recession and market correction of 2008-2009 and beyond. It was the worst correction since the dot com crash of the early 2000’s. Defensive sectors can play the role of bonds (and work in concert with bonds) to provide greater financial stability. With defensive sector ETFs you might be able to build a superior Canadian retirement portfolio.

First off, here’s the original post on the defensive sectors for retirement.

The key defensive sectors are healthcare, consumer staples and utilities.

And a key chart from that post. The defensive sectors were twice as good as the traditional balanced portfolio. The chart represents a retirement funding scenario.

You can check out the original post for ideas for U.S. dollar defensive sector ETFs.

The following is for Canadian dollar accounts. Keep in mind, this is not advice. Consider this post as ‘ideas for consideration’ and part of the retirement portfolio educational process.

The yield is shown as an annual percentage as of mid March, 2023.

80% Equities / 20% Bonds and Cash

Growth sector ETFs

  • 15% VDY 4.6% Canadian High Dividend
  • 15% VGG 1.8% U.S. Dividend Growth

Canadian defensive sector ETFs

  • 15% ZHU 0.5% U.S Healthcare
  • 10% STPL 2.4% Global Consumer Staples
  • 5.0% XST 0.6% Canadian Consumer Staples
  • 10% ZUT 3.7% Canadian Utilities

Inflation fighters

Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada (for any Retirement Age)

So you have been reading Million Dollar Journey (MDJ) for years, have used your Canadian online broker account to DIY-invest your way to a solid nest egg.

You’ve got a TFSA, and RRSP, and maybe even a non-registered account – full of good revenue-generating assets.

Kudos!

Now comes the tough part: How do you turn that nest egg into a usable stream of money that you can spend as you enter retirement?

Surprisingly, when it comes to discussing Canadian safe retirement withdrawal rates, and talking to folks who have retired at all ages, spending their retirement savings represented a massive mental strain for them.  I guess (as someone who has never retired or sold investments to pay for retirement) that I always thought that saving for retirement would be the hard part.

Isn’t spending supposed to be more fun than squirreling away?

It turns out that once you get into that savings mindset, it can be hard to flip the switch back to enjoying spending the fruits of your labour.  This is especially true for folks who are looking at strategies for an early retirement because they are much more likely to have been super-aggressive savers during their time in the workforce.

I didn’t go into the topic of safe withdrawal rates for retirement expecting the topic to be so deep and full of variables! Afterall, the concept seems simple enough right?

How much can I take out of my investment portfolio each year, if I need that nest egg to last for 30, 35, 40, or even 50 years?

Ok, so let’s maybe start with the rule of thumb that advisors have used when looking at retirement drawdown plans for a while now.

Back in 1994 a financial advisor named William Bengen looked at the last 80 or so years of markets and retirement, did a bunch of math, and arrived at a concept we now call “The 4% rule.”

The basic idea of the 4% retirement withdrawal plan is that someone could safely withdraw 4% of their investment/savings portfolio each year and – assuming a 60/40 or 50/50 split of bonds/stocks in their portfolio – they would never run out of money.  This idea of withdrawing a certain percentage of your portfolio to fund your retirement is called the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR). The math behind this magic 4% figure means that if you have the nice round $1 Million investment portfolio that we all dream of, you could safely pull out $40,000 the first year, and then adjust for inflation and withdraw 4% plus inflation after that. (So if there was 2% inflation between year one and year two, you could now withdraw $40,800.)

Bengen, and another highly influential study took their rule and retroactively applied it to retirees from every single year from 1926 to 1994.  They found that nearly 100% of the time (depending on what was in the investment portfolio) people could retire, and withdraw 4% of their portfolio for 30 years of retirement – and not run out of money.  In fact, a large percentage of the time, if retirees followed the 4% rule, they not only didn’t run out of money, they finished life with more money than when they started retirement!

Keep in mind, these authors didn’t worry about OAS or CPP, or a workplace pension, or even the tax implications of different types of withdrawals.  They were simply trying to come up with a useful rule of thumb for how much a person could safely withdraw from their retirement portfolio.

What the 4% Rule means for your Magic Retirement Portfolio Number

If you can safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio to fund your retirement, then the simple math tells us that if you can accumulate 25x your annual retirement budget, you no longer have to work.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Jane looks at her budget and realizes that once she retires she will have a lot less spending demands.  She carefully weighs the numbers and believes she’ll need $40,000 per year to quit her 9-to-5.
  • Consequently, Jane needs the magical “4% of her portfolio” to equal $40,000 per year.
  • For a 4% withdrawal to equal $40,000, Jane will need a $1,000,000 portfolio.
  • If Jane reassess and realizes she needs $60,000 per year in retirement, Jane would need 25 times $60,000 (because 4% goes into 100% twenty-five times) which is $1.5 Million.
  • Jane might not need anywhere close to $1.5M if she intends to do a little part-time work in retirement, and is willing to use some math + research strategies to help herself out a bit when it comes to managing her nest egg!  But more on that later…

4% Safe Withdrawal Rate: Potential Problems

Up until the 4% rule became a thing, when financial advisors were asked about safe withdrawal rates, the only thing they could really say is, “it depends.”

This was followed by a whole lot of graphs, math, and other boring stuff that no one really understood, but didn’t want to admit to not understanding.

The 4% rule of thumb was a BIG deal when it came to financial planning.  It provided the best answer yet to the millions of retirees who desperately wanted an answer to the question:

“How much money can I take out of this portfolio each year without going broke and eating cat food as an 80-year-old?!!!

Before we get into discussing the nitty gritty of safe withdrawal rates today, we must understand the limitations of the 4% rule.  Here are the major rules that I came across after reading for roughly a hundred hours. The research I read was mostly done by people who have dedicated a major part of their life’s work to studying retirement and spending patterns across the globe.  As far as I can tell, they are our best hope for trying to define just what the range of outcomes will be for various types of retirement spending + investing plans. The two major experts that I relied on most were Wade D. Pfau and Michael Kitces, with major assists to the writers behind Early Retirement Now, The Mad Fientist, and Millennial Revolution.

1) There is no way to know the future returns for any asset class.  We’ll get into this more later on in the show, but basically, the vast majority of the math that these folks are basing their withdrawal rates on is underpinned by a US stock market that has done incredibly well over the last 100+ years.  A few other stock markets of developed countries have done as well (Yay Canada!), but the majority of stock markets DO NOT return 10%+ over the long haul.

It turns out that when you don’t know how much money your nest egg will be generating, solving for how much money to take out becomes kind of hard to answer!

2) These withdrawal plans were mostly created with a 30-year retirement time horizon in mind.  When most people were retiring at 60 or 65, and living to 75-80, a 30-year window looked like a pretty safe horizon for most people.  If this still describes your plan, a 30-year horizon is probably still a pretty safe rule of thumb. If you’re looking at leaving your job at 40-50 years of age (or even earlier) and living well into your 90s, you could easily be looking at a retirement that lasts 50+ years!  (Which is pretty cool to think about, really!)

3) The 4% rule doesn’t reflect how many Canadians actually invest and pay for investment advice.  In a perfect world, we would all handle our own withdrawal plan and DIY our portfolio allocations and withdrawals.  But many of us aren’t interested in diving into the deep end of handling our own assets. Consequently, we have to take those pesky investment-related fees into account when looking at our safe withdrawal plans.  If you’re paying 2% of your returns to a mutual fund salesperson each year, you will need a lot more than $1 Million to safely withdraw 4% each year.

4) The 4% rule doesn’t take into account adjustment in behaviour.  For example, Jane might take on a little part-time work to make $10,000 per year if she sees her account balance going down too fast.  Or she may decide to move somewhere that has much lower living costs. A blanket rule that tries to predict 30 years into the future can’t possibly allow for all of these variables.

5) There is no OAS and/or CPP taken into consideration when looking at the 4% rule.  It’s also likely that Jane might not have considered how taxes might affect how much she needs to withdraw each year.

6) The 4% rule tries to address what us finance geeks call Sequence of Return Risk – but it gets really hard to do so after you go beyond the 30-year mark of retirement.  More on this below.

So, now that we know what the rules of thumb are for safe withdrawal rates that the professors of all things money have come up with, as well as some of the limitations of those rules of thumb, let’s take a look at what this might mean when applied to your retirement!

How has the 4% Rule Done in the Past

Given all of these variables that the 4% rule doesn’t account for, you might be wondering just why it is so widely used.

The truth is that I put all that naysayer stuff first because folks love to poke holes in financial theories. (For good reason, we’re talking about people’s life plans here.) Let’s look at just why the 4% rule has become the rule of thumb.

As always when discussing financial planning and financial projects, one must understand that while looking at past results in the stock and bond markets is one of the best tools we have, it does not guarantee future results!

Drawing on what I’ve read from Bengen, the Trinity Study, and recent authors such as Pfau and Kitces, here’s some summary notes on just how the 4% rule would have worked in the past in the USA market. (The Canadian market has actually done slightly better most of the time, so the conclusions would be quite similar when looking at past Canadian returns.)

1) When you apply the original 4% withdrawal philosophy, not only does your money never run out over any 30-year period over the last 100 years – But 95% of the time the retiree would have finished with MORE THAN THEY STARTED WITH!

I know this sounds crazy, but companies have made a lot of money the last 100 years.  If you owned a piece of them, you’ve done pretty well!

2) More than half of the time, the retiree who stuck to the 4% rule would have DOUBLED THEIR MONEY at the end of the 30-year time frame.

What this means, is that in the past, it is far more likely that retirees could have spent substantially more than that 4% withdrawal safety number, than it was that they would ever run out of money.

3) Rather than use Bengen’s 60/40 portfolio, you can actually increase your chances of favourable outcomes by skewing your portfolio to take on more stocks.  Of course, your portfolio will also be likely to cause a bit more heartburn as you watch stocks gyrate up and down over the years.

4) Even folks who retired during the rough decade of the 2000s are doing just fine.

If I Want to Retire Early or do this whole “FIRE” Thing – Does the 4% Work for Me?

The short answer is: Probably Not

When you start to take rules that were created for a 30-year safe withdrawal period, and stretch them out over 50+ years, it makes sense that the rules of thumb don’t really work anymore.

Taking money out of your nest egg for that long means that you’re more likely to encounter a long-term period of rough markets, and have your money run out.

The website Early Retirement Now (created by folks who are fluent in high-level economics math and Monte Carlo simulations) have created the following chart and conclusions when it comes to safe withdrawal rates and long retirement periods.

I’ve checked their assumptions with a ton of really smart people that I trust, as well as doing the math myself, and if you assume the same returns that we’ve had the past 100 years or so in North America, I can’t find anything to argue with!

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada

1) The 30-year 4% rule still works pretty well, and a 5% withdrawal rate is only fit for the very adventurous or flexible-minded out there!

2) Tilting your portfolio towards stocks over bonds increases your chances of the best outcomes – assuming that you don’t panic when markets go down and sell at the worst times.

3) At high stock allocations, the 4% rule still worked pretty darn well for a 50- or 60-year retirement! (With past returns that is.) Continue Reading…