Tag Archives: withdrawals

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…

Rethinking the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate

Posted By |

 

By Fritz Gilbert, TheRetirementManifesto

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The 4% safe withdrawal rule is a well-known “rule of thumb” for those planning for retirement.

One thing it has going for it is that it’s simple to apply.

If you have $1 Million, the 4% safe withdrawal rule says you can spend $40,000 (4% of $1M) in year one of retirement, increase your spending by the rate of inflation each year, and you’ll never run out of money.

Simple, indeed.

But, I’d argue that simplicity comes at a potentially very serious cost.  Like, potentially running out of money in retirement.

Today, I’ll present my argument against the 4% safe withdrawal rule given our current economic situation, and propose 3 modifications I’d recommend as you determine how much you can safely spend in retirement.

Rethinking the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

I read a lot of information on retirement planning, and lately, I’ve been seeing more content challenging the 4% safe withdrawal rule.  I agree with those concerns and felt a post outlining my position was warranted.

As a brief background, the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule is based on the “Trinity Study,” which appeared in this original article by William Bergen in the February 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Association of Individual Investors.  For further background, here’s an article that Wade Pfau published on the study.  I’ll save you the details, you can study them for yourself at the links provided.

The conclusion, based on the study, is summarized below:

“Assuming a minimum requirement of 30 years of
portfolio longevity, a first-year withdrawal of 4 percent,
followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals in
subsequent years, should be safe.”

My Concerns With The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

In short, some key factors about the study are relevant, especially as we “Rethink The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule”

  • It’s based on historical market performance from 1926 – 1992.  

My Concern:  Relying on past performance to predict future returns can mislead the investor, especially given the unique valuations in today’s markets (more on that below).  This point is driven home by this recent Vanguard article that projects future returns based on current market valuations:

4% safe withdrawal rule assumptions

If you think the Vanguard outlook is depressing, check out this forecast from GMO as presented in this Wealth of Common Sense article titled “The Worst Stock and Bond Returns Ever”:

stock and bond forecast

  • Note the VG forecast is nominal (before inflation) whereas the GMO is real (after inflation).

Why Are Future Returns Expected to Be Below Average?

The biggest driver for the projected below-average returns is the high valuation in today’s equity market (particularly in the USA), and the fact that interest rate increases would negatively impact bond yield.  In my view the CAPE Ratio is one of the best indicators of market valuations.  Below is the current CAPE ratio as I write this post on November 16, 2021:

CAPE Ratio

The reason current valuations matter is the fact that they’re highly correlated to future returns, as indicated from this concerning chart that I saw last weekend on cupthecrapinvesting:

CAPE ratio correlation to future returns

Based on today’s CAPE ratio, the historical correlation suggests the forward total returns over the next 10 years could be close to 0%.  Scary stuff for someone who’s planning on equity growth to pay for their retirement expenses.  Scary stuff for someone who’s committed to the 4% safe withdrawal rule.

In addition to the bearish outlook for US equities, bonds could be negatively impacted if when interest rates increase.  To get a sense of how low the US 10-year Treasury yields are now compared to long-term averages, below is the current chart of 10-year yields from CNBC:

4% safe withdrawal rate rule - bond impact

Bond prices are inversely related to interest rates, so as rates go up, bond prices go down.  So, if you’re holding 60% stocks and 40% bonds, it’s possible that you could see decreases in both asset classes.

As cited in this Marketwatch article, The Fed has begun signaling that interest rates are “on the table” for 2022, especially if the current bout of inflation proves to be less than a transitory event (for the record, I suspect it will be more than transitory, but what do I know?).

This brings us to the next concern …

My Other Big Concern With The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule:

In addition to my concern above (the risk of an extended period of below-average market returns), I don’t like the part of the rule which states you should “increase your spending the following year based on the rate of inflation.”  As most of you know, inflation has been on a bit of a tear lately, as demonstrated in this chart from usinflationcalculator.com:

Based on the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule, you would be increasing spending next year based on the higher inflation rate, which could well be the same time you’re seeing lower than expected returns.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sit well with me.

Suggested Modifications to the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

It wouldn’t be fair to cite my concerns with the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule without suggesting an alternative. Following are the 3 modifications I’d suggest for your consideration.  I’m applying all 3 of these modifications in our personal retirement strategy. 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…

Debunking the 4% withdrawal Rule

Posted By |

The 4% rule is a framework to think about how to safely draw down your retirement savings without fear of outliving your money. It was developed in 1994 by financial advisor William Bengen, who concluded that retirees could safely withdraw 4% annually from their portfolio over a 30 year period without running out of money.

Critics of the 4% rule argue that it doesn’t hold up in today’s environment because, one, bond yields are so low, and two, because it fails to account for rising expenses (inflation) and investment fees (costs matter). 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%?

Financial planning expert Michael Kitces takes the opposite view. He says there’s a highly probable chance that retirees using the 4% rule will come to the end of 30 years with even more money than they started with, and an extremely low chance they’ll spend their entire nest egg.

The problem lies in the data and testing for the absolute worst case scenarios, which in Bengen’s research included the Great Depression. Bengen looked at rolling 30-year periods to test the safe withdrawal rate and found the worst case scenario was retiring right before the Great Depression in 1929. Even with that terrible timing, a retiree could safely withdraw 4.15% of his or her portfolio.

Are FIRE savers bad at math?

Kitces broadened the data set and found two more ‘worst case scenarios’ which included 1907 and 1966. But what was interesting is the average safe withdrawal rate throughout every available period in the data set was 6% to 6.5%. Continue Reading…

Can RRSPs ever get too large?

Posted By |

Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plan concept word cloudCan a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) ever get too large? From time to time, you’ll hear certain financial advisors say so and propose “melting down” RRSPs in a tax-effective manner.

The Financial Post just ran a piece by me on this topic, entitled The Pros and Perils of making early withdrawals from your RRSP. One of the sources cited is a familiar one to Hub readers: Doug Dahmer of Emeritus Financial Strategies often writes guest blogs in the Hub’s Decumulation section.

RRSP primer for millennials

Continue Reading…