Tag Archives: retirement income

Retired Money: How Vanguard’s 4% targeted payout on VRIF makes it easier for retirees to draw income

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at Vanguard Canada’s new targeted 4% annual payout vehicle for retirees and near-retirees, provided by its new VRIF ETF. You can find the full article by clicking on the highlighted headline: The lowdown on Vanguard’s Retirement Income ETF: can you rely on its 4% payout target?

The Vanguard Retirement Income ETF Portfolio [VRIF/TSX] started trading Sept. 16th and offers retirees and near-retirees a 4% targeted — as opposed to guaranteed — payout. See also the Hub’s republication of Robb Engen’s preview on VRIF that appeared first on his BoomerandEcho site.

Positioned as a “Decumulation” product for retirees and near-retirees, it’s probably no coincidence that the 4% target is nicely in line with the long-established 4% Rule discussed on the Hub and MoneySense earlier this summer.

While a targeted return is NOT a guarantee – unlike the guaranteed but puny rates paid by GICs these days – Vanguard expects it will attract a fair amount of money from income-oriented investors suffering sticker shock when their GICs mature. Currently, many 1-year GICs pay around 0.5%, ranging from as little as 0.3% to no more than 1.1%. Even going out to 5-year terms, they’re typically paying only 1.4%, ranging from under 1% to 2% in the best case.

Technically, those GIC returns are “guaranteed”  but a cynic might say they’re guaranteed to lose money on an after-tax, inflation-adjusted “real return” basis. Based on recent statements by the Bank of Canada and US federal reserve, this is not likely to improve before 2023. In the UK there are even renewed whispers of negative rates.

Of course, to achieve the 4% targeted payout, investors still have to bear some stock-market risk. VRIF consists of eight existing Vanguard stock and bond ETFs with an asset mix of roughly 50% stocks and 50% bonds.

VRIF has much lower fees than comparable income mutual funds and income ETFs

Monthly income mutual funds and ETFs have been around for years but as is typical, Vanguard aims to be the low-cost leader in the category. With such tiny returns from the fixed-income component, those costs are an important determinant of how much money is left for investors. The full MoneySense article recaps the fees relative to existing income mutual funds and income ETFs. Continue Reading…

Retired Money: You can still count on 4% Rule but there are alternatives to settling for less

Posted By |
MoneySense.ca; Photo created by senivpetro – www.freepik.com

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at that perpetually useful guideline known as the 4% Rule. Click on the highlighted headline to access the full article online: Is the 4% Rule Obsolete?

As originally postulated by CFP and author William Bengen, that’s the Rule of Thumb that retirees can safely withdraw 4% of the value of their portfolio each year without fear of running out of money in retirement, with adjustments for inflation.

But does the Rule still hold when interest rates are approaching zero? Personally I still find it useful, even though I mentally take it down to 3% to adjust for my personal pessimism about rates and optimism that I will live a long healthy life. The column polls several experts, some of whom still find it a useful starting point, while others believe several adjustments may be necessary.

Fee-only planner Robb Engen, the blogger behind Boomer & Echo, is “not a fan of the 4% rule.” For one, he says Canadians are forced to withdraw increasingly higher amounts once we convert our RRSPs into RRIFs so the 4% Rule is “not particularly useful either … We’re also living longer, and there’s a movement to want to retire earlier. So shouldn’t that mean a safe withdrawal rate of much less than 4%?”

It’s best to be flexible. It may be intuitively obvious but if your portfolio is way down, you should withdraw less than 4% a year. If and when it recovers, you can make up for it by taking out more than 4%. “This might still average 4% over the long term but you are going to give your portfolio a much higher likelihood of being sustainable.”

Still, some experts are still enthusiastic about the rule.  On his site earlier this year, republished here on the Hub, Robb Engen cited U.S. financial planning expert Michael Kitces, who believes there’s a highly probable chance retirees using the 4% rule over 30 years will end up with even more money than they started with, and a very low chance they’ll spend their entire nest egg.

Retirees may need to consider more aggressive asset allocation

Other advisors think retirees need to get more comfortable with risk and tilt their portfolios a little more in favor of equities. Adrian Mastracci, fiduciary portfolio manager with Vancouver-based Lycos Asset Management Inc., views 4% as “likely the safe upper limit for many of today’s portfolios.” Like me, he sees 3% as offering more flexibility for an uncertain future. Continue Reading…

Why the 4% rule is actually (still) a decent rule of thumb

Posted By |

By Mark Seed

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

I’m not a huge listener to podcasts but I do enjoy them from time to time – beyond the ever popular Joe Rogan Experience that is.

Recently, I found the BiggerPockets Money Podcast with financial independence enthusiast, financial planner, along with a host of other financial designations Michael Kitces very interesting.

For an hour+ the hosts of that podcast dove deep into the simple math behind the 4% safe withdrawal rate so many investors in the early retirement community rely on, and, why Michael Kitces ultimately believes the 4% rule actually remains a very good rule of thumb to plan by.

If you don’t have an hour and 22 minutes to listen to this episode (not many people do…) then no worries, I’ve captured the essence of the interview from this solid podcast below. Kudos to the folks at BiggerPockets for the deep dive.

Let me know your thoughts about the 4% rule in the comments section. I look forward to them.

Mark

Background – what is the 4% rule???

In general terms, the “4% rule” says that you can withdraw “safely” 4% of your savings each year (and increase it every year by the rate of inflation) from the time you retire and have a very high probability you’ll never run out of money.

Some things to keep in mind when you read this:

  1. This ‘rule’ originated from a paper written in the mid-1990s by a financial planner in the U.S. who looked at rolling 30-year periods of a 50% equity/50% fixed income asset allocation. His name was Bill Bengen.

4% rule

You can find the details of the report here.

2. This rule was developed almost 30-years ago. A lot has changed since then including real returns from bonds. There are also products on the market now that allow investors to diversify far beyond the mix of large-cap U.S. stocks and treasuries the Bengen study was based on.

3. The study was designed to answer the question: “How much can I safely withdraw from my retirement savings each year and have my nest egg last for the duration of my retirement?” Little else.

4. The study assumed (at the time) most retirees would retire around age 60. Therefore, a “good retirement” would be ~30 years thereafter; what is the safe withdrawal rate to make it through retirement until death.

5. The rule takes none of the following into account:

  • Will you (or your spouse) have a defined benefit pension plan?
  • Do you expect to receive an inheritance?
  • Will you downsize your home?
  • Do you have a shortened life expectancy or health issues that should be considered?
  • Will you continue to earn some form of income in your senior years?
  • And the list of what ifs goes on and on and on

My 4% rule example:

My wife and I aspire to have a paid off condo AND own a $1 M personal portfolio to start semi-retirement with in the coming years.

If we can grow our portfolio to that value, markets willing, the 4% rule tells us we could expect to withdraw about 4% of that million nest egg (or about $40,000 per year indexed to inflation) and have virtually no concerns we would run out of money for the next 30 years (mid-70s by then).

To the podcast and my takeaways!

On the subject of a 4% withdrawal rate – is that conservative?

Michael: Yes. If your time horizon is 30-years, it probably is. Because, when Bengen looked at his different rolling periods … he found the worst case scenario was a withdrawal rate of about 4.15%. “It was the one rate that worked in the worst historical market sequence…”

Does recent data say anything different since the 1994 study?

Michael: Not really. 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…

Do Spousal RRSPs still have a place in Retirement Planning?

Posted By |

By Matthew Ardrey

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

One of the more frequent questions I get from clients regarding their retirement planning is, with the pension income splitting legislation, are spousal RRSPs worthwhile anymore? The answer is yes, in several situations.

Before I outline the planning situations that are useful for spousal RRSPs, first a little primer on what they are and how pension income splitting changed the view of them.

Spousal RRSPs

A spousal RRSP is an RRSP account in which one spouse makes contributions based on his/her room to a RRSP in the other spouse’s name. This is a way to income split in retirement, as future withdrawals, subject to restrictions noted below, would be in the recipient spouse’s name and presumably in a lower tax bracket than the contributor spouse.

The restriction is on the withdrawal timing. If the recipient spouse withdraws any amount from the spousal RRSP in the year of a contribution or the two years following, the amount withdrawn attributes back to the contributing spouse. The only exception to that is a minimum RRIF payment.

In summary the contributing spouse receives the RRSP deduction at his/her current marginal tax rate and the future income is withdrawn at the recipient spouse’s lower tax rate in retirement, maximizing the RRSP tax deferral advantage.

Pension Income Splitting

The pension income splitting legislation introduced in 2007 allowed not only defined benefit pension income to be split between spouses, but also RRIF payments after the age of 65. No matter who owned the RRIF, both spouses could share equally in the income for tax purposes. As the RRIF payment could be divided 50/50 between spouses, the income splitting advantage of the spousal RRSP diminished.

The Case for Spousal RRSPs: Tax Efficient Decumulation

After years of saving, much of today’s tax planning is around decumulating assets. My clients not only want to drawdown their registered accounts but do so in the most tax efficient manner possible. For many, this opportunity often lies in time period between retirement and the receipt of CPP and OAS.

This is one of the most advantageous times to employ an RRSP meltdown strategy. With no further employment income, before receiving government pension income and with presumably little to no other income, RRSP withdrawals can be made with minimal tax consequences. Continue Reading…