This Spending Strategy Outperforms 4% Rule, With a Catch

Analysis May 08, 2023 at 02:16 PM
Share & Print

The use of variable retirement income spending strategies that go beyond traditional fixed-withdrawal methods, such as the ubiquitous 4% rule, is becoming increasingly common, thanks mainly to the fact that such dynamic strategies can generate significant additional lifetime wealth.

However, as noted in a new analysis published on Morningstar's website by Christine Benz, director of personal finance, these dynamic withdrawal strategies come with an important catch that advisors must emphasize with their clients during the income planning process. Failing to do so could lead to substantial client confusion and consternation.

The catch? A relatively high level of variability in the anticipated annual income stream a client will be able to enjoy. Such variability can be hard for clients to stomach if they have not been adequately coached about the way dynamic spending strategies work — particular about how they seek to allow higher spending overall at the cost of the client potentially needing to weather some low-income years when the markets struggle.

This issue is especially prevalent when an advisor embraces what is coming to be called the "guardrails" approach to retirement income, Benz warns.

The Facts About Spending Guardrails

Stated simply, the guardrails approach to retirement income attempts to deliver adequate "but not overly high" raises for retirees during upward-trending markets while adjusting downward after market losses.

"In upward-trending markets, in which the portfolio performs well and the new withdrawal percentage (adjusted for inflation) falls below 20% of its initial level, the withdrawal increases by the inflation adjustment plus another 10%," Benz explains.

In the new analysis, Benz offers an example with "easy numbers" to help demonstrate the point, in which the starting withdrawal percentage for a theoretical retiree is 4% of $1 million, or $40,000.

If the portfolio increases to $1.4 million at the beginning of the second year of retirement, the retiree could start by taking the normal $40,000 plus a normal inflation adjustment. This would be, say, $41,136 in base income for year two if one assumed a 2.84% inflation rate.

The advisor could then divide that amount by the current balance — $1.4 million — in order to "test" the percentage for a potential adjustment either up or down. In this case, thanks to the positive market performance, the base case of $41,136 is just 2.9% of $1.4 million.

"As that 2.9% figure is 27% less than the starting percentage of 4%, the retiree qualifies for an upward adjustment of 10%," Benz explains. "The new withdrawal amount becomes $45,256 — or the scheduled amount of $41,136 plus the additional 10% of $4,120."

Obviously, the guardrails must apply during down markets, too.

"Specifically, the retiree cuts spending by 10% if the new withdrawal rate (adjusted for inflation) is 20% above its initial level," Benz explains.

Jumping off the prior example, if the retiree withdrawing 4% ($40,000) of the $1 million portfolio in the first year of retirement "strikes an investment iceberg" and loses 30% of the portfolio value, that will necessitate an income cut.

"The Year 2 withdrawal would be $41,136 on a pretest basis," Benz explains. "But because $41,200 from $700,000 is a 5.9% withdrawal rate — more than 20% higher than the initial 4% — the retiree would need to reduce the scheduled $41,136 amount by 10%, to $37,016."

While such income cuts are painful, the benefit of adhering to these rules is the highest starting "safe" withdrawal amount of any system Benz and her team have tested. For a 50% equity and 50% bond portfolio, the average safe starting withdrawal rate for a 30-year horizon with a 90% probability of success was 5.3%. This compares with a safe fixed rate in the realm of 3.5% to 4%.

Potential Client Issues

"As with all of the dynamic systems, the major trade-off of the guardrails system's higher [starting] withdrawal rates is that retirees need to be able to deal with some variations in their annual cash flows," Benz writes.

This is very different from what clients can expect with a traditional fixed-withdrawal spending system such as the 4% rule. Such an approach may deliver less aggregate income over time, but it does deliver a pattern of fixed real withdrawals with no volatility in cash flows.

In analyst-speak, Benz says, the standard deviation of the guardrails system's cash flows is the second highest of the many income strategies she and her team tested. Only the method that based withdrawals entirely on required minimum distributions had higher cash flow volatility.

Guardrails also led to substantially higher cash flow volatility than was the case for strategies that entail forgoing inflation adjustments or taking a 10% reduction following a year in which the portfolio has declined, Benz warns.

"That's because those strategies only impose spending changes when the portfolio value has declined," she notes. "By contrast, guardrails may lead to a spending adjustment after both very good and very bad portfolio performance. In other words, the triggers for spending changes are inherently more frequent with guardrails than is the case with some of the other strategies, though few retirees would finding getting a 'raise' in their paychecks to be disagreeable."

Another key caveat to explore with clients, according to Benz, is that portfolios with higher equity allocations tended to have bigger swings in annual cash flows than more-conservative portfolios, as the high stock weighting triggered more frequent raises and cutbacks.

(Image: Adobe Stock)

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center