Tag Archives: retirement income

Creating retirement income from your portfolio

Posted By |

By Dale Roberts, cutthecrapinvesting

Special to Financial Independence Hub

There is a 4% “rule” that suggests you can spend about 4% of your portfolio value each year, with annual increases adjusted for inflation. And the idea is to create sustainable income that will last 30 years or more. This post looks to a Globe & Mail article (and chart) from Norm Rothery. We’re creating retirement income at various spend rates and looking at the outcomes.

The ‘problem’ with the 4% rule is that it is based on the absolute worst outcomes including retiring just before or during the Depression of 1929. In this post on MoneySense Jonathan Chevreau shows that in most periods (with a US-centric portfolio) a retiree could have comfortably moved that spend rate to the 6% range. If we use the 4% rule there’s a good chance we’ll leave a lot of money on the table. We will lead a lesser retirement compared to what the portfolio was offering. As always, past performance does not guarantee future results.

The 4% rule suggests that each $100,000 will create $4,000 in annual income with an inflation adjustment.

All said, we do need to manage the stock-market risk. Balanced portfolios are used for the 4% Rule evaluations. The portfolios are in the area of a 50% to 60% equities with the remainder in bonds. The studies will use the stock markets and the bond market indices. For example the S&P 500 (IVV) for U.S. equities and the aggregate bond index (AGG) for bonds. Investment and advisory fees will directly lower your spend rate. A 5% spend rate becomes a 3.0% spend rate with advisory and fund fees totalling 2%. Taxes are another consideration.

Creating retirement income

Here’s the wonderful post (sub required) from Norm Rothery.

And here’s the chart that says it all, creating retirement income from 1994 at various spend rates. A global balanced portfolio is used; I will outline that below.

As Norm states, your outcome is all about the start date. Here’s how to read the chart. Each line represents a spend rate and the current portfolio value from each start date. For example, on the far right we see the portfolio value from the 2024 start date. Of course, it’s still near the original $1 million. On the far left we see the current portfolio value (inflation adjusted) with a 1994 retirement start date. If we look at 2010 on the x axis (bottom) we see the current portfolio value from a 2010 start date. At a 5% spend rate, the portfolio value is near the original $1 million.

The portfolios have a 60/40 split between stocks and bonds, and more specifically put 40 per cent in the S&P Canada Aggregate Bond Index (Canadian bonds), 20 per cent in the S&P/TSX Composite Index (Canadian stocks), 20 per cent in the S&P 500 index (U.S. stocks), and 20 per cent in the MSCI EAFE Index (international stocks).

1994 was a wonderful retirement start date. In and around the year 2000 and just before 2008 provided unfortunate start dates. We see the 2000 start date with 5% and 6% spend rates go to zero.

Some retirees get lucky; some don’t.

That unfortunate retirement start date

In a separate post Norm looked at creating retirement income from that unfortunate year 2000 start date.

In a recent Sunday Reads post I looked at that chart and retiring during the dot com crash. You’ll find plenty of other commentary in that link, including what happened to the all-equity portfolio as it tried to take on that severe market correction. Also for consideration, it might be more about your risk tolerance and emotions compared to the portfolio math. That post also shows that retirees with more conservative portfolios feel free to spend more. Your emotions can certainly get in the way of your spending plans, and hence your retirement lifestyle. Continue Reading…

How your part-time job can support your retirement

Posted By |

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub 

You probably know from my site, including the last few years, I love sharing case studies.

Part of the reason I enjoy doing so is because of positive reader feedback.

Another reason: I believe any case studies help the process of planning even if your personal finance situation is different.

You can learn from others – what you want and what you don’t want.

Here are some other popular case studies on my site before we get into this one today: how your part-time job can support your retirement.

How much do you need to retire on $5,000 per month?

And this one:

How might you retire on a lower income?

How your part-time job can support your retirement

During the pandemic, that caused so many impacts to so many people on various hardship levels, I recognized that some individuals took income matters into their own hands – they developed a side hustle.

In doing so, these folks aspired to resolve a few issues:

  1. it allowed them to further develop skills they already had or follow their passions, while
  2. making financial ends meet out of necessity.

Now that the global pandemic is thankfully over, many newer entrepreneurs continue to enjoy their side hustle during full-time work or even some retirees continue to work not because they have to, but because they want to.

Beyond maintaining a strong sense of purpose, the financial math suggests working part-time or even occasionally can make a HUGE difference to support your retirement plan.

Over the last few years running Cashflows & Portfolios, I’ve met many people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who are looking to scale back from full-time work, a bit, and instead work part-time or occassionally as they consider semi-retirement.

I am one of them on that path! 🙂

In fact, I shared in our recent Financial Independence Update that my wife has just started a bit of her semi-retirement / work on own terms journey in the last week or so. She is optimistic this can continue for the coming year or potentially longer. That would be ideal for us. I just need to catch-up and try and accomplish the same thing!

So, some folks may work in semi-retirement because they need the money. Not ideal but that works of course.

Others may work mainly because they like what they do, they want to stay busy with a strong sense of purpose, and they even enjoy their co-workers too! Far more ideal which is our plan.

We’ve always considered retiring to something, and transitioning to full-on retirement after a few years of part-time work. We’ll keep that approach alive now that we’re debt-free.

via GIPHY

Consider this question:

Would you rather have really rich experiences when you’re 50 or be really rich when you’re 80?”

We know our answer.

How your part-time job can support your retirement

Given quite a few My Own Advisor readers and Cashflows & Portfolios members are also considering a better life-work balance as they age, I thought it would be interesting to profile a couple that seeks this very objective: how part-time work can support their retirement plan.

Our case study participants today are Brandon and Stacey.

They live here in Ottawa, near me.

After a few full-time decades in the workforce, Brandon and Stacey feel:

“Controlling your time is the highest dividend money pays.” – The Psychology of Money

My couple today wants to know how much they need to earn to meet their retirement income goals.

Today’s post will tell them and it will provide some guidance for you as well. Continue Reading…

Dividend ETFs: Finding Stability and Growth in Income Investments

Posted By |

Discover the Keys to Identifying Dividend ETFs that offer Consistency, Quality, and Long-Term Growth

Image from Pexels/Anna Nekrashevich

Higher interest rates mean dividend-paying stocks must increasingly compete with fixed-income investments for investor interest. However, sustainable dividends still offer an
attractive and growing income stream for investors.

Companies that pay regular and growing dividends have performed very well over the long run when compared to the broad market indices. For example, a simple strategy such as selecting stocks with an extended history of uninterrupted dividend growth, such as represented by the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats, has added 11.5% per year over the past 30 years. This compares to the 10.0% annual gain for the S&P 500 Index. And not only did the dividend payers beat the overall market, but they were also less volatile.

The superior long-term performance of the dividend growth companies can be attributed to a combination of several factors: Companies with long histories of regular and growing dividend payments generally have sound competitive business models and growing profits; these are also companies with experienced managements that make disciplined capital allocation decisions, strive for lower debt levels, and operate firms more profitable than their peers.

Notably, though, the Dividend Aristocrats’ performance lagged over the past 5 years against the S&P 500 index.

Most of this underperformance came over the last year and a half, as higher interest rates made fixed-income investments, such as GICs, more attractive for income-seeking investors when compared to dividend-paying equities.

The dividend sweet spot

Income-seeking investors who decide to take on the risk of the stock markets are faced with a wide range of options including “yield enhanced” dividend-paying ETFs, moderate-yielding companies with average growth rates, and low-yielding but fast-growing companies. Then there is also the group of companies that have very high dividend yields and may seem attractive but, unfortunately, come with elevated risk.

In many cases, a high yield may be a warning sign that all is not well with a company and that future dividend payments are at risk of being cut.

As well, a dividend cut, or even an outright dividend suspension, is often accompanied by a steep decline in the share price, as income investors dump their former dividend favourites.

A 2016 study by a group of U.S.-based academics provides some statistical guidelines for sensible dividend-based investing.

In reviewing the performance of almost 4,000 U.S. companies over 50 years, they found that dividend-paying stocks beat non-dividend payers.

In particular, the middle group of dividend yielders (i.e., those with an average yield of 4.3%) surpassed both the low yielders and the high yielders in terms of total return. Equally important, this superior performance was achieved with lower risk, as measured by the standard deviation of returns.

Based on this long-term study, it makes sense to avoid the highest-yielding stocks and rather look for companies with moderate yields and sound growth prospects. This safety-first approach will result in a lower yield but likely provide a better total return (dividends plus capital) at lower risk.

How to spot dividend ETFs worth investing in

When investing in dividend-paying companies through an ETF, here are key factors to consider: Continue Reading…

Movements to Minimize Taxable Income in Retirement Accounts

Posted By |

Money management is essential to help your savings thrive and benefit your [U.S.] retirement accounts. Discover movements to minimize taxable income.

By Dan Coconate

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Navigating the path to a financially secure retirement can often seem like navigating a labyrinth with no exit. With so many potential strategies and considerations, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. However, efficient tax management is key to unlocking a financially comfortable retirement.

By adeptly managing your taxable income, particularly through individual retirement accounts (IRAs) [or in Canada, RRSPs], you can pave a clear path through the complexities of retirement planning, positioning yourself for a secure, worry-free future. Understanding the necessary movements to minimize taxable income in a retirement account will help you optimize and maximize your retirement savings.

Contribute to a Traditional IRA

Investing in a traditional IRA can be a smart move to effectively reduce your taxable income. Your contributions may be tax deductible, depending on your income and whether your work’s retirement plan also covers your spouse.

The more you contribute to your traditional IRA within the IRS contribution limits, the more you can reduce your taxable income for the year.

Consider a Roth IRA Conversion

A Roth IRA conversion is a strategic financial decision that can secure tax-free income during retirement. When you convert from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the converted amount in the year of conversion. [Roth IRAs are the U.S. equivalent of Canada’s Tax-Free Savings Accounts or TFSAs] Continue Reading…

What Experts get wrong about the 4% Rule

Posted By |
Pexels Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

 

The origin of the so-called 4% rule is WIlliam Bengen’s 1994 journal paper Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data.  Experts often criticize this paper saying it doesn’t make sense to keep your retirement withdrawals the same in the face of a portfolio that is either running out of money or is growing wildly.  However, Bengen never said that retirees shouldn’t adjust their withdrawals.  In fact, Bengen discussed the conditions under which it made sense to increase or decrease withdrawals.

Bengen imagined a retiree who withdrew some percentage of their portfolio in the first year of retirement, and adjusted this dollar amount by inflation for withdrawals in future years (ignoring the growth or decline of the portfolio).  He used this approach to find a safe starting percentage for the first year’s withdrawal, but he made it clear that real retirees should adjust their withdrawal amounts in some circumstances.

In his thought experiment, Bengen had 51 retirees, one retiring each year from 1926 to 1976.  He chose a percentage withdrawal for the first year, and calculated how long each retiree’s money lasted based on some fixed asset allocation in U.S. stocks and bonds.  If none of the 51 retirees ran out of money for the desired length of retirement, he called the starting withdrawal percentage safe.

For the specific case of 30-year retirements and stock allocations between 50% and 75%, he found that a starting withdrawal rate of 4% was safe.  This is where we got the “4% rule.”  It’s true that this rule came from a scenario where retirees make no spending adjustments in the face of depleted portfolios or wildly-growing portfolios.  So, he advocated choosing a starting withdrawal percentage where the retiree is unlikely to have to cut withdrawals, but he was clear that retirees should reduce withdrawals in the face of poor investment outcomes. Continue Reading…