Tag Archives: RRIFs

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…

Are you tax planning for you …. or for your estate?

Posted By |

By Aaron Hector, B.Comm., CFP, RFP, TEP

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” – Benjamin Franklin

While death and taxes may be certain, the variables in and around them are certainly not. That’s why they warrant attention and planning. The following analysis provides some food for thought when deciding whether to use proactive tax planning to optimize your living net-worth or your after-tax estate.

A tisket, a tasket, a future tax basket

Most retirees have baskets of “future tax” that are just sitting there in abeyance. The most common of these tax baskets is the one that’s attached to RRSP accounts. When you contribute to your RRSP, you get a tax deduction which gives you a break on the taxes payable in that year. But when the time eventually comes to make a withdrawal, each dollar you remove from your RRSP will be fully taxable and increase your income accordingly.

Depending on the situation, there could be several other future tax baskets as well. For example, you might have unrealized capital gains that are attached to a non-registered investment account, or even an additional property. When these assets are sold in the future, the capital gain at that time will be subject to taxation.

Our tax system is progressive, which means the tax rates continue to increase as your income does, thus moving you from a lower tax bracket to a higher one. When you die (without a surviving spouse), all of the remaining tax baskets are dealt with at that time. This often results in a significant amount of taxable income that’s exposed to the highest marginal tax rates which can exceed 50%, depending on your province of residency.

Managing future tax

What can be done to manage this future tax in a way that avoids exposure to such high tax rates? One popular approach is to look at your projected retirement income and identify when in the future there might be years where income is lower than average or higher than average, and then try and shift income away from the high years to fill in the low years. This “tax averaging” often results in an acceleration of income in earlier years, which then lowers the exposure to high tax rates later in life or upon death.

If you think this sounds challenging, remember that any financial planner worth their salt should be able to review your assets and liabilities, then map out your projected income going forward on a year-by-year basis. The low-income years most commonly occur immediately following retirement; the paycheque has stopped, but maybe you have ample cash and non-registered savings that can be used to fund your lifestyle. It’s quite possible that the income you would report on your tax return in these years would be minimal. However, by the end of the year that you turn 71 your RRSP accounts must be converted into RRIF accounts, giving rise to forced annual withdrawals that are fully taxable. These mandatory withdrawals might mark the beginning of your high-income retirement years and may even result in your Old Age Security (OAS) being clawed back. That being said, it really depends on one’s individual circumstances.

The nice thing about the future tax is that, for the most part, you have flexibility in deciding when you convert that future tax into current tax. Just because you can wait until age 72, when you are forced to make your first withdrawal from your RRSP (RRIF), doesn’t mean that you must wait until you are 72. Furthermore, this doesn’t need to be a cash flow decision. If you don’t need the money to fund your lifestyle, then you can simply take the money that is withdrawn from the RRSP and then (subject to withholding taxes) reinvest it back into another account such as your TFSA or non-registered account. The point here is that you have the option of choosing what you believe to be an optimal year to increase the amount of income that will be reported on your tax return.

Similarly, you can choose to trigger a capital gain within a non-registered account at any time. A sale of a stock doesn’t need to be an investment decision – it can be a tax decision. Simply sell the stock, thereby triggering the capital gain, and then immediately rebuy it. The capital gain will then be reported on your tax return in the year it was sold, and your taxable income will be increased accordingly.

In a nutshell, every dollar of income that you accelerate is a dollar of income that you don’t have to report in the future, and you get to choose what tax rates get applied to that dollar; the current marginal rate, or the future marginal rate (which could be higher). It’s easy to see how this process can result in your paying a lower average lifetime tax rate.

How to impact your lifetime assets and estate

Let’s dig a bit deeper. How do these choices carry forward and impact your lifetime assets and ultimately your estate? I’ll begin with some foundational ideas and then provide a real-life example.

Imagine a scenario where your current marginal tax rate is 30% while living, but if you died then the marginal tax rate on your final tax return would be 50%. Continue Reading…