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: Can an RRSP or a RRIF ever be “too large?”

Posted By |
MoneySense.ca

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a problem some think is a nice one for retirees to have: can an RRSP — and ultimately a RRIF — ever become too large? You can find the full column by clicking on the adjacent highlighted headline: How large an RRSP is too large for Retirement?

This is a surprisingly controversial topic. Some financial advisors advocate “melting down” RRSPs in the interim period between full employment and the end of one’s 71st year, when RRIFs are typically slated to begin their annual (and taxable) minimum withdrawals. Usually, RRSP meltdowns occur in your 60s: I began to do so personally a few years ago, albeit within the confines of a very conservative approach to the 4% Rule.

As the piece points out, tax does start to become problematic upon the death of the first member of a senior couple. At that point, a couple no longer has the advantage of having two sets of income streams taxed in two sets of hands: ideally in lower tax brackets.

True, the death of the first spouse may not be a huge tax problem, since the proceeds of RRSPs and RRIFs pass tax-free to the survivor, assuming proper beneficiary designations. But that does result in a far larger RRIF in the hands of the survivor, which means much of the rising annual taxable RRIF withdrawals may start to occur in the higher tax brackets. And of course if both members of a couple die with a huge combined RRIF, their heirs may share half the estate with the Canada Revenue Agency.

For many seniors, the main reason to start drawing down early on an RRSP is to avoid or minimize clawbacks of Old Age Security (OAS) benefits, which begin for most at age 65. One guideline is any RRSP or RRIF that exceeds the $77,580 (in 2019) threshold where OAS benefits begin to get clawed back. Of course you also need to consider your other income sources, including employer pensions, CPP and non-registered income.

Adrian Mastracci

“A nice problem to have.”

But the MoneySense column also introduces the counterargument nicely articulated by Adrian Mastracci, fiduciary portfolio manager with Vancouver-based Lycos Asset Management. Mastracci, who is also a blogger and occasional contributor to the Hub, is fond of saying to clients “A too-large RRSP is a nice problem to have!”

Retirement can last a long time: from 65 to the mid 90s can be three decades: a long time for portfolios to keep delivering. A larger RRIF down the road gives retirees more financial options, given the ravages of inflation, rising life expectancies, possible losses in bear markets, low-return environments and rising healthcare costs in one’s twilight years. These factors are beyond investors’ control, in which case Mastracci quips, “So much for the too-big RRSP.”

 

Should you roll the dice with your retirement savings?

Posted By |

 

By Dale Roberts, Cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

You’ve worked for decades to build your retirement nest egg. You have invested smartly. The investment portfolio is required to fund a significant portion of your retirement years. In fact, you need those monies to last for many decades. Should you invest in an all-stock portfolio? That approach might deliver greater income than the traditional stock and bond portfolio.

Yup. More stocks might deliver more growth. No one can deny that stocks are the growth engine of a portfolio. When we own stocks we become business owners and we share in the success (or failure) of those companies. In the past, owning a big basket of market-leading companies has worked out more than well.

When stocks earn 8% we can spend 8%?

Retirement funding is tricky business. It’s much more complicated than the accumulation stage. The sequence of returns does not matter that much at all when we are building our portfolios, and we have decades until that retirement start date. We might see several good years that are followed by two or three bad years. Those bad years will not affect your retirement readiness when you have decades to recover. A savvy investor will even enjoy those bad years as the stocks go ‘on sale’.

But in retirement the order of stock market and portfolio returns do matter. That’s called sequence-of-returns risk. A bad year or a few bad years early in retirement can permanently impair your portfolio and your retirement. Even before that retirement start date we are already in the retirement risk zone.

But stocks beat the crap out of bonds

Most retirees and most financial planners will add some bonds to the portfolios of retirees. Those bonds work like shock absorbers. While there is no guarantee, good bonds have a habit of going up in price when stocks get hit hard. This is typical retirement planning ‘thinking’. And yes, there are other weapons besides bonds.

On Twitter we had a very robust discussion on retirement funding and risk. Financial Planner Ed Rempel defended the all-stock portfolio for retirees. And he provided some support with this chart:

According to Mr. Rempel, the success rate for an all equity portfolio is 97% for a period that spans over 100 years. Success is defined as the retiree being able to spend at 4% of the portfolio value, every year, with an adjustment equal to inflation. Of course that’s called the 4% rule. That’s a retirement planning benchmark that is useful, but is then usually disposed of for dozens of reasons. For Boomer and Echo I had asked if there was a new normal for Canadian retirees . Continue Reading…

The ultimate guide to safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada (for any Retirement age)

Posted By |

By Kyle Prevost, for MillionDollarJourney

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Most Canadians approaching retirement have two questions:

1.) How much can I take out of my investment portfolio each year if I want to be guaranteed not to outlive my money?

2.) Once I know the answer to my first question, can I live on that much money, plus whatever government benefits or private pension plan I might get.

The truth is that there are a TON of variables that go into answering these two questions for each person.  BUT the best that we’ve come up with so far is the “4% rule of thumb”.

That said, our 4% number (much more discussion on what this actually means below) depends on you optimizing your portfolio and withdrawal strategy.  If you’re embracing early retirement, and are looking at a retirement horizon of 30, 40, or even 50+ years, the 4% rule of thumb can still working surprisingly well for you!

Before we get to a discussion on the details of this handy tool and how it might apply to you, I should note that after talking to several financial experts in Canada, we all agree on one general observation about Canadian retirees:

It was really hard to get people who had been determined savers to spend their money!

Turns out that flipping the switch from a safe & investment mindset to an “enjoy life and spend nest egg” mindset is not as easy as one might initially think.

You’ve been reading MDJ for years, have used your Questrade DIY discount brokerage portfolio to accumulate a solid nest egg that includes your TFSA, RRSP, and perhaps even a non-registered account.  Now comes the time to start your retirement drawdown or withdrawal strategy. Surprisingly, when it comes to discussing Canadian safe retirement withdrawal rates, and 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 an early retirement withdrawal rate or strategy, because they are much more likely to have been super-aggressive savers during their time in the workforce.

Since this will be my first post for MDJ, I wanted to make it a real beauty.  I didn’t go into it 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?

Personally, much like Frugal Trader, I’m hoping to retire sooner rather than later, so this question had particular relevance for me.  After diving into the math on this topic, it turns out that there are many things to consider when looking at how long your retirement savings will last, and it’s actually much more difficult to get a 100% mastery of, than the math involved with building an investment portfolio.  Use the table of contents links below to navigate the article if you’re short on time, or are only interested in one aspect of the extended article.

The 4% Retirement Withdrawal Rule

What the 4% Rule Means for Your Magic Retirement Portfolio Number

Potential Problems of the 4% Rule

How Has the 4% Rule Done In the Past

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

What Could Force My Retirement Into a Worst-Case Scenario?

Fees Suck – Get Rid of Them to Up Your Chances

Will The Returns of My Portfolio Look Like the Last 100 Years?

PWL Capital & Vanguard & the Shiller CAPE ratio

If Lower Returns Are the New Normal – How Does This Affect Me?

Sequence of Return Risk 

Avoiding the Worst-Case Scenario: Handling the First Ten Years to Reduce Your Risk

How Does OAS and CPP Factor into Safe Withdrawal Rates?

Emergencies or Tax Changes

Conclusion

The 4% Retirement Withdrawal Rule

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. Continue Reading…

Retirement planning programs revisited

Posted By |

More than a year ago I wrote a column for the Financial Post about a handful of Canadian retirement income planning software packages that help would-be retirees and semi-retirees plan how to start drawing down from various income sources: Click on the highlighted text to retrieve the full article: How you draw down your retirement savings could save you thousands: this program proves it.

The focus of the FP piece is Cascades but you can also find a MoneySense piece I wrote from late 2018 that looked at Viviplan, and one I wrote for the Globe & Mail last November that described Cascades, Viviplan and Doug Dahmer’s Retirement Navigator and BetterMoneyChoices.com.

Dahmer has been writing guest blogs on decumulation here at the Hub almost since this site’s founding in 2014. See for example his most recent one, or the similar articles flagged at the bottom: Top 10 Rules for Successful Retirement Income Planning. Dahmer says he’s pleased that others are waking up to the need for tax planning in the drawdown years: “Cascades provides a very good, easy-to-use introduction to these concepts.”

There may be as many as 26 distinct sources of income a retired couple may encounter, estimates Ian Moyer, a 40-year veteran of the financial industry and creator of the Cascades program described in the articles.

When he started to plan for his own decumulation adventure, six years ago, he felt there was very little planning software out there that was both comprehensive and easy to use. So, he hired a computer programmer and created his own package, now called Cascades.

Continue Reading…

Mark Seed’s hybrid Income Investing and Retirement Strategy: Your questions answered

Posted By |
By Mark Seed
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
Image courtesy of iShares

 

For many years now, I’ve been a huge fan of dividend investing.

Dedicated readers will know I’m on a mission with this strategy – an aggressive one at that – to hopefully earn $30,000 per year in dividend income from a few key accounts.

I figure this income stream, supplemented with other assets (e.g., RRSPs, workplace pensions, other), should set us up well for semi-retirement in the coming years.

While I love dividends, especially from my Canadian stocks, I invest beyond Canada’s borders using some low-cost U.S.-listed ETFs.

You can find some of my favourite ETFs to own here.

I invest this way (more than ever) since I believe in portfolio diversification.  In using some low-cost U.S. ETFs, I obtain this diversification and therefore opportunities for long-term growth at a very low cost.

This makes me a ‘hybrid’ investor: using a basket of Canadian (and some U.S.) dividend growth stocks for passive, rising income and using some low-cost ETFs to ride the general stock market equity returns.  I believe in this two-pronged approach since it should not only provide some passive income for life, but it should also deliver capital appreciation as well.

Like other Canadian bloggers that I look up to, I’ve been building my dividend stock portfolio (and adding to it) since around 2008-2009.  I’m well on my way to earning the desired $30,000 per year from a few accounts: a recent update you can find here.

Should you follow this approach?

Is hybrid investing right for you?

Well, check out the rest of this post and you can decide …

Your Ever Growing Income

My friend and past contributor to this site, Henry Mah, recently released a book called Your Ever Growing Income.

You can read about the Canadian and U.S. versions of that book here.

Henry recent encouraged bloggers and passionate investors like myself to publish some answers to a few questions: about income investing and my retirement strategy.

Today’s post does just that!

Income Investing and my Retirement Strategy

1.) What stocks should you buy and why?

I have a bias to owning companies that have a long, established history of rewarding shareholders.

You can see some of the very dividend-friendly histories of many Canadian stocks here.

On my Dividends page, I have highlighted some of the stocks I own; they are:

  • Canadian banks (examples:  RY, TD, BNS, BMO, CM).
  • Canadian insurance companies (examples:  SLF, MFC, GWO).
  • Canadian pipeline companies (examples:  ENB, TRP, IPL).
  • Canadian telecommunications companies (examples:  BCE, T).
  • A few major Canadian energy companies (like SU).
  • Canadian utilities (examples:  FTS, EMA, AQN, CU, CPX, INE, BEP.UN).

My thinking?

Basically, I buy companies that people need.  People need to bank, so I own banks.  People need insurance, so I own insurance companies.  Last time I checked people want to heat and cool their home(s) in Canada, so I own those companies too.  I think you get the idea …

I also own a number of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).  Examples include REI.UN, HR.UN, CAR.UN, CHP.UN and a few more.  I’ve basically unbundled REIT ETFs like ZRE, XRE and ZRE to own those companies directly.

I tend to own what the big funds in Canada own.  I don’t pay any money management fee to do so. [See holdings of the iShares i60s shown at the top of this blog.]

2.) How do I evaluate the merits of the stocks I am considering?

My approach is rather simple:

  • If the Canadian company pays a dividend, I might consider it.
  • If the Canadian company has paid a dividend for many years, I will consider it.
  • If the company has paid a dividend for decades or generations, I will most undoubtedly want to own it.
  • If the company has raised its dividend for decades or generations, I probably already own it.

As part of my portfolio, I also consider the following when buying and holding stocks:

  • Sector diversification: given Canada is dominated by financial and energy sectors, I try to invest in healthcare, consumer stocks and technology companies state-side via low-cost U.S. ETFs.
  • Earnings: I look at company earnings for any longer-term warning signs.
  • Payout ratio: I look at the company’s dividend payout ratio for any flags.
  • High yield: I try to avoid chasing yield since I believe consistent dividend growth and increases (ideally year-after-year) are some keys to wealth creation; not owning a high-yield stock whereby the dividends are likely unsustainable

3.) When should you invest more money into new stocks or the ones you already own?

Tough question!

I can’t predict the future … although I wish I could.

For the most part, I don’t deviate very far from the existing ~30 Canadians stocks I own.  I tend to buy more shares in the stocks I own when they’ve been beaten up.  If people have a hate-on for banks, I buy them.  If REITs have been punished of late, I buy those.  You get the idea.  I hope to rinse and repeat this approach until wealthy.

That means, I’ve essentially unbundled the top-Canadian ETFs like XIU, XIC, VCN and a few others for passive income.

Maybe you shouldn’t take my word for it.  Here is some very sage advice:

“The selection of common stocks for the portfolio of the defensive investor should be a relatively simple matter.   Here we would suggest four rules to be followed:

  • There should be adequate thought not excessive diversification. This might mean a minimum of ten different issues and a maximum of about thirty.
  • Each company should have a long record of continuous dividend payments …
  • Each company selected should be large, prominent, and conservatively financed …
  • The investor should impose some limit on the price he will pay for an issue in relation to its average earnings over, say the past seven years.” – Benjamin Graham, considered the father of value investing; most well-known disciple of his teaching: Warren Buffett. 

4.) When should you sell your stocks?

Hardly ever.

I mean it.

As long as the dividends are paid and continue to increase year-after-year, I will own the stocks I do:  the banks, the utilities, the pipelines, the telcos, and so on,

That said, no company nor investing approach is perfect so if the company you own stopped increasing its dividends for a few years, it might be time (depending upon the broader economic climate) to ditch the company.

5.) Should you be worried when the market and prices are going down? Why?

No.

I mean that too.

Why?

Consider stock prices going down like a sale.

Investing in the stock market seems like the only place in the world where people don’t celebrate paying less for something they want to buy.

If your intention, like mine, is to own a basket of dividend paying stocks that have a long track record of rewarding shareholders with raises, then you should really learn to train your investing brain and look at broad market declines as a great way to celebrate buying stocks on sale.

Here’s how to prepare for any market meltdown. Continue Reading…