Tag Archives: RRIFs

Why you should (or shouldn’t) defer OAS to Age 70

Posted By |

I’ve long advocated that anyone who expects to live a long life should consider deferring their Canada Pension Plan to age 70. Doing so can increase your CPP payments by nearly 50% – an income stream that is both inflation-protected and payable for life. If taking CPP at 70 is such a good idea, why not also defer OAS to age 70?

Many people are unaware of the option to defer taking OAS benefits up to age 70. This measure was introduced for those who retired on or after July 1, 2013 – so it is still relatively new. Similar to deferring CPP, the start date for your OAS pension can be deferred up to five years with the pension payable increased by 0.6% for each month that the pension is deferred.

OAS Eligibility

By the way, unlike CPP there is no complicated formula to determine your eligibility and payment amount. That’s because OAS benefits are paid for out of general tax revenues of the Government of Canada. You do not pay into it directly. In fact, you can receive OAS even if you’ve never worked or if you are still working.

Simply put, you may qualify for a full OAS pension if you resided in Canada for at least 40 years after turning 18 (when you turn 65).

To be eligible for any OAS benefits you must:

  • be 65 years old or older
  • be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time your OAS pension application is approved, and
  • have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18

You can apply for Old Age Security up to 11 months before you want your OAS pension to start.

Your deferred OAS pension will start on the date you indicate in writing on your Application for the Old Age Security Pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

There is no financial advantage to defer your OAS pension after age 70. In fact, you risk losing benefits. If you’re over the age of 70 and not collecting OAS benefits make sure to apply for OAS right away.

Here are three reasons why you should defer OAS to age 70:

1). Enhanced Benefit – Defer OAS to 70 and get up to 36% more!

The standard age to take your OAS pension is 65. Unlike CPP, there is no option to take OAS early, such as at age 60. But you can defer it up to 60 months (five years) in exchange for an enhanced benefit.

Deferring OAS to age 70 can be a wise decision. You’ll receive 7.2% more each year that you delay taking OAS (up to a maximum of 36% more if you take OAS at age 70). Note that there is no incentive to delay taking OAS after age 70.

Here’s an example. The maximum monthly payment one can receive at age 65 (as of July 2021) is $626.49. Expressed in annual terms, that equals $7,553.88.

Let’s look at the impact of deferring OAS to age 70. Benefits will increase by 0.6% for each month of deferral, so by age 70 we’ll see a total increase of 36%. That brings our annual OAS pension to $10,273 – an increase of $2,719 per year for your lifetime (indexed to inflation).

2). Avoid / Reduce OAS Clawback

In my experience working with clients in my fee-only practice, retirees are loath to give up any of their OAS benefits due to OAS clawbacks. That means designing retirement income and withdrawal strategies specifically to avoid or reduce the OAS clawback.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) calls this OAS clawback an OAS pension recovery tax. If your income exceeds $79,845 (2021) then you are required to pay back some or all of the OAS pension you receive from July 2022 to June 2023. For every dollar of income above the threshold, your OAS pension is reduced by 15 cents. OAS is fully clawed back when income exceeds $129,581 (2021).

So, does deferring OAS help avoid or reduce the OAS clawback? In many cases, yes.

One example I’ve come across many times is when a client works beyond their 65th birthday. In this case, they may want to postpone OAS simply because they’re still working and don’t need the income. In some cases, the additional income received from OAS would be partially or completely clawed back due to a high income. Deferring OAS to at least the next calendar year when you’re in a lower tax bracket makes a lot of sense.

Aaron Hector, financial consultant at Doherty & Bryant, says there is a clear advantage to postponing OAS if someone expects their retirement income to push them into the OAS clawback zone.

“Not only will postponement provide them with an enhanced OAS income, it will also in turn provide them with a higher clawback ceiling,” said Mr. Hector.

It might also allow the opportunity to draw down RRSP/RRIF assets between 65 and 70 which would reduce future expected retirement income (lower RRSP/RRIF assets = lower mandatory withdrawals between age 72 and death).

One could also stash any unspent RRSP/RRIF withdrawals into their TFSA. Growing their TFSA in retirement gives retirees the valuable ability to withdraw money tax-free any time and not have that income affect their means-tested benefits (such as OAS).

3). Take OAS at 70 to protect against Longevity Risk

It’s counterintuitive to defer taking pensions such as CPP and OAS (even with an enhanced benefit for waiting) because it forces retirees to tap into their personal savings – depleting their nest egg earlier and faster than they’d prefer. Indeed, people are reluctant to spend their capital.

Retired Money: Has Purpose uncorked the next Retirement income game changer?

Posted By |
Purpose Investments: www.retirewithlongevity.com/

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published: you can find the full version by clicking on this highlighted text: Is the Longevity Pension Fund a cure for Retirement Income Worries? 

The topic is last Tuesday’s announcement by Purpose Investments of its new Longevity Pension Fund (LPF). In the column retired actuary Malcolm Hamilton describes LPF as “partly variable annuity, part tontine and part Mutual Fund.”

We described tontines in this MoneySense piece three years ago. Milevsky wasn’t available for comment but his colleague Alexandra Macqueen does offer her insights in the column.

The initial publicity splash as far as I know came early last week with this column from the Globe & Mail’s Rob Carrick, and fellow MoneySense columnist Dale Roberts in his Cutthecrapinvesting blog: Canadian retirees get a massive raise thanks to the Purpose Longevity Fund. Dale kindly granted permission for that to be republished soon after on the Hub. There Roberts described the LPF as a game changer, a moniker the Canadian personal finance blogger community last used to describe Vanguard’s Asset Allocation ETFs. Also at the G&M, Ian McGugan filed Money for life: The pros and cons of the Purpose Longevity Pension Fund, which may be restricted to Globe subscribers.

A mix of variable annuity, tontine, mutual fund and ETFs

So what exactly is this mysterious vehicle? While technically a mutual fund, the underlying investments are in a mix of Purpose ETFs, and the overall mix is not unlike some of the more aggressive Asset Allocation ETFs or indeed Vanguard’s subsequent VRIF: Vanguard Retirement Income Portfolio. The latter “targets” (but like Purpose, does not guarantee) a 4% annual return.

The asset mix is a fairly aggressive 47% stocks, 38% fixed income and 15% alternative investments that include gold and a real assets fund, according to the Purpose brochure. The geographic mix is 25% Canada, 60% United States, 9% international and 6% Emerging Markets.

There are two main classes of fund: an Accumulation Class for those under 65 who are  still saving for retirement; and a Decumulation class for those 65 and older. There is a tax-free rollover from Accumulation to Decumulation class.

There are four Decumulation cohorts in three-year spans for those born 1945 to 1947, 1948 to 1950, 1951 to 1953 and 1954 to 1956. Depending on the class of fund (A or F),  management fees are either 1.1% or 0.6%. [Advisors may receive trailer commissions.] There will also be a D series for self-directed investors.

Initial distribution rates for purchases made in 2021 range from 5.65% to 6.15% for the youngest cohort, rising to 6.4 to 6.5% for the second youngest, 6.4% to 6.9% for the second oldest, and 6.9% to 7.4% for the oldest cohort.

Note that in the MoneySense column, Malcolm Hamilton provides the following caution about how to interpret those seemingly tantalizing 6% (or so) returns: “The 6.15% target distribution should not be confused with a 6.15% rate of return … The targeted return is approximately 3.5% net of fees. Consequently approximately 50% of the distribution is expected to be return of capital. People should not imagine that they are earning 6.15%; a 3.5% net return is quite attractive in this environment. Of course, there is no guarantee that you will earn the 3.5%.”

Full details of the LPF can be found in the MoneySense column and at the Purpose website.

Variable Percentage Withdrawal: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Posted By |
By Michael J. Wiener
Special to the Financial Independence Hub

 

The concept of Variable Percentage Withdrawal (VPW) for retirement spending is simple enough: you look up your age in a table that shows what percentage of your portfolio you can spend during the year.

The tricky part is calculating the percentages in the table.  Fortunately, a group of Bogleheads did the work for us.  Unfortunately, the assumptions built into their calculations make little sense.

If we knew our future portfolio returns and knew how long we’ll live, then calculating portfolio withdrawals would be as simple as calculating mortgage payments.  For example, if your returns will beat inflation by exactly 3% each year, and your $500,000 portfolio has to last 40 more years, the PMT function in a spreadsheet tells us that you can spend $21,000 per year (rising with inflation).

Instead of expressing the withdrawals in dollars, we could say to withdraw 4.2% of the portfolio in the first year.  If the remaining $479,000 in your portfolio really does earn 3% above inflation in the first year, then the next year’s inflation-adjusted $21,000 withdrawal would be 4.26% of your portfolio.  Working this way, we can build a table of withdrawal percentages each year.

Of course, market returns aren’t predictable.  Inevitably, your return will be something other than 3% above inflation.  You’ll have to decide whether to stick to the inflation-adjusted $21,000 or use the withdrawal percentages.  If you choose the percentages, then you have to be prepared for the possibility of having to cut spending.  If markets crash during your first year of retirement, and your portfolio drops 25%, your second year of spending will be only $15,300 (plus inflation), a painful cut.

A big advantage of using the percentages is that you can’t fully deplete your portfolio early.  If instead you just blindly spend $21,000 rising with inflation each year, disappointing market returns could cause you to run out of money early.

Choosing Withdrawal Percentages

One candidate for a set of retirement withdrawal percentages is the RRIF mandatory withdrawals.  These RRIF withdrawal percentages were designed to give payments that rise with inflation as long as your portfolio returns are 3% over inflation.

Unfortunately, the RRIF percentages would have a 65-year old spending only $20,000 out of a $500,000 portfolio.  Some retirees chafe at being forced to make RRIF withdrawals, but when it comes to the most we can safely spend in a year, most retirees want higher percentages.

A group of Bogleheads calculated portfolio withdrawal percentages for portfolios with different mixes of stocks and bonds.  Most people will just use the percentages they calculated, but they do provide a spreadsheet (with 16 tabs!) that shows how they came up with the percentages.

It turns out that they just assume a particular portfolio return and choose percentages that give annual retirement spending that rises exactly with inflation.  You may wonder why this takes such a large spreadsheet.  Most of the spreadsheet is for simulating their retirement plan using historical market returns.

The main assumptions behind the VPW tables are that you’ll live to 100, stocks will beat inflation by 5%, and bonds will beat inflation by 1.9%.  These figures are average global returns from 1900 to 2018 taken from the 2019 Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook.

So, as long as future stock and bond returns match historical averages, you’d be fine following the VPW percentages.  Of course, about half the time, returns were below these averages.  So, if you could jump randomly into the past to start your retirement, the odds that you’d face spending cuts over time is high.

For anyone with the misfortune to jump back to 1966, portfolio spending would have dropped by half over the first 14 years of retirement.  More likely, this retiree wouldn’t have cut spending this much and would have seriously depleted the portfolio while markets were down.

The VPW percentages have no safety margin except for your presumed ability to spend far less if it becomes necessary.

Looking to the Future

But we don’t get to leap into the past to start our retirements.  We have to plan based on unknown future market returns.  How likely are returns in the next few decades to look like the average returns from the past? Continue Reading…

Retired Money: RRSP must start winding down after you turn 71 but TFSA is a tax shelter that lasts as long as you do

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published and looks at the twin topic of RRSPs that must start to be converted to a RRIF after you turn 71, and the related fact that the TFSA is a tax shelter you can keep adding to as long as you live. You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: How to make the most of your TFSAs in Retirement.

Unlike RRSPs, which must start winding down the end of the year you turn 71, you can keep contributing to TFSAs for as long as you live: even if you make it past age 100, you can keep adding $6,000 (plus any future inflation adjustments) every year. Also unlike RRSPs, contributions to Tax-free Savings Accounts are not calculated based on previous (or current) year’s earned income.  Any Canadian aged 18 or older with a Social Insurance Number can contribute to TFSAs.

Once you turn 71, there are three options for collapsing an RRSP, although most people think only of the one offering the most continuity with an RRSP; the Registered Retirement Income Fund or RRIF.  More on this below but you can also choose to transfer the RRSP into a registered annuity or take the rarely chosen option of withdrawing the whole RRSP at one fell swoop and paying tax at your top marginal rate.

Assuming you’re going the RRIF route, all your RRSP investments can move over to the RRIF intact, while interest, dividends and capital gains generated thereafter will continue to be tax-sheltered. The main difference from an RRSP is that each year you must withdraw a certain percentage of your RRIF and take it into your taxable income, where it will be taxed at your top marginal rate like earned income or interest income. This percentage start at 5.28%  the first year and rises steadily, reaching 6.82% at age 80 and ending at 20% at 95 and beyond.

Some may be upset they are required to withdraw the money even if it’s not needed to live on. After all, you’re gradually being forced to break into capital, assuming you abide by some version of the 4% Rule (see this article.)

in 2020 only, you can withdraw 25% less than usual in a RRIF

For 2020 only, one measure introduced to cushion seniors from the Covid crisis was a one-time option to withdraw 25% less than normal from a RRIF; so if you turned 72 in 2020 you can opt to withdraw 4.05% instead of 5.4%. 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…