Tag Archives: retirement income

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…

Searching for a Safe Withdrawal Rate: the Effect of Sampling Block Size

Posted By |
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

How much can we spend from a portfolio each year in retirement?  An early answer to this question came from William Bengen and became known as the 4% rule.  Recently, Ben Felix reported on research showing that it’s more sensible to use a 2.7% rule.

Here, I examine how a seemingly minor detail, the size of the sampling blocks of stock and bond returns, affects the final conclusion of the safe withdrawal percentage.  It turns out to make a significant difference.  In my usual style, I will try to make my explanations understandable to non-specialists.

The research

Bengen’s original 4% rule was based on U.S. stock and bond returns for Americans retiring between 1926 and 1976.  He determined that if these hypothetical retirees invested 50-75% in stocks and the rest in bonds, they could spend 4% of their portfolios in their first year of retirement and increase this dollar amount with inflation each year, and they wouldn’t run out of money within 30 years.

Researchers Anarkulova, Cederburg, O’Doherty, and Sias observed that U.S. markets were unusually good in the 20th century, and that foreign markets didn’t fare as well.  Further, there is no reason to believe that U.S. markets will continue to perform as well in the future.  They also observed that people often live longer in retirement than 30 years.

Anarkulova et al. collected worldwide market data as well as mortality data, and found that the safe withdrawal rate (5% chance of running out of money) for 65-year olds who invest within their own countries is only 2.26%!  In follow-up communications with Felix, Cederburg reported that this increases to 2.7% for retirees who diversify their investments internationally.

Sampling block size

One of the challenges of creating a pattern of plausible future market returns is that we don’t have very much historical data.  A century may be a long time, but 100 data points of annual returns is a very small sample.

Bengen used actual market data to see how 51 hypothetical retirees would have fared.  Anarkulova et al. used a method called bootstrapping.  They ran many simulations to generate possible market returns by choosing blocks of years randomly and stitching them together to fill a complete retirement.

They chose the block sizes randomly (with a geometric distribution) with an average length of 10 years.  If the block sizes were exactly 10 years long, this means that the simulator would go to random places in the history of market returns and grab enough 10-year blocks to last a full retirement.  Then the simulator would test whether a retiree experiencing this fictitious return history would have run out of money at a given withdrawal rate.

In reality, the block sizes varied with the average being 10 years.  This average block size might seem like an insignificant detail, but it makes an important difference.  After going through the results of my own experiments, I’ll give an intuitive explanation of why the block size matters.

My contribution

I decided to examine how big a difference this block size makes to the safe withdrawal percentage.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the data set of market returns Anarkulova et al. used.  I chose to create a simpler setup designed to isolate the effect of sampling block size.  I also chose to use a fixed retirement length of 40 years rather than try to model mortality tables.

A minor technicality is that when I started a block of returns late in my dataset and needed a block extending beyond the end of the dataset, I wrapped around to the beginning of the dataset.  This isn’t ideal, but it is the same across all my experiments here, so it shouldn’t affect my goal to isolate the effect of sampling block size.

I obtained U.S. stock and bond returns going back to 1926.  Then I subtracted a fixed amount from all the samples.  I chose this fixed amount so that for a 40-year retirement, a portfolio 75% in stocks, and using a 10-year average sampling block size, the 95% safe withdrawal rate came to 2.7%.  The goal here was to use a data set that matches the Anarkulova et al. dataset in the sense that it gives the same safe withdrawal rate.  I used this dataset of reduced U.S. market returns for all my experiments.

I then varied the average block size from 1 to 25 years, and simulated a billion retirements in each case to find the 95% safe withdrawal rate.  This first set of results was based on investing 75% in stocks.  I repeated this process for portfolios with only 50% in stocks.  The results are in the following chart.

The chart shows that the average sample size makes a significant difference.  For comparison, I also found the 100% safe withdrawal rate for the case where a herd of retirees each start their retirement in a different year of the available return data in the dataset.  In this case, block samples are unbroken (except for wrapping back to 1926 when necessary) and cover the whole retirement.  This 100% safe withdrawal rate was 3.07% for 75% stocks, and 3.09% for 50% stocks.

I was mainly concerned with the gap between two cases: (1) the case similar to the Anarkulova et al. research where the average sampling block size is 10 years and we seek a 95% success probability, and (2) the 100% success rate for a herd of retirees case described above.  For 75% stock portfolios, this gap is 0.37%, and it is 0.32% for portfolios with 50% stocks.

In my opinion, it makes sense to add an estimate of this gap back onto the Anarkulova et al. 95% safe withdrawal rate of 2.7% to get a more reasonable estimate of the actual safe withdrawal rate.  I will explain my reasons for this after the following explanation of why sampling block sizes make a difference.

Why do sampling block sizes matter?

It is easier to understand why block size in the sampling process makes a difference if we consider a simpler case.  Suppose that we are simulating 40-year retirements by selecting two 20-year return histories from our dataset.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s take all our 20-year return histories and order them from best to worst, and call the bottom 25% of them “poor.”

If we examine the poor 20-year return histories, we’ll find that, on average, stock valuations were above average at the start of the 20-year periods and below average at the end.  We’ll also find that investor sentiment about stocks will tend to be optimistic at the start and pessimistic at the end.  This won’t be true of all poor 20-year periods, but it will be true on average.

When the simulator chooses two poor periods in a row to build a hypothetical retirement, there will often be a disconnect in the middle.  Stock valuations will jump from low to high and investor sentiment from low to high instantaneously, without any corresponding instantaneous change in stock prices.  This can’t happen in the real world. Continue Reading…