Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Moshe Milevsky

Retirement Planning > Spending in Retirement > Income Planning

The ‘Tiresome’ Persistence of the 4% Rule

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • Despite its flaws, the 4% safe withdrawal rule remains a popular talking point.
  • The world of fiduciary financial planning has moved on to more comprehensive and rigorous approaches.
  • Experts say it is important for advisors to help put rules of thumb into their proper context.

The world of fiduciary retirement planning may have moved on from the 4% “safe withdrawal” rule, but that doesn’t mean the public — or even the advisor community at large — is ready to set it aside.

As one recent article published by the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail demonstrates, the rule is still commonly presented as an apparently foolproof strategy for protecting one’s retirement portfolio while (hopefully) meeting a decent standard of living.

Simply limit your withdrawals to 4% or less and your retirement will be a success, the argument goes, but take 5% or more and you’re flirting with disaster.

The only problem with that simple message, which his true under a specific set of market assumptions and longevity projections, is that it is short of context and therefore potentially misleading.

“Yes, this is still being debated,” Moshe Milevsky, a finance professor at York University in Toronto, said of the article in a post on X Monday. “Lord have mercy.”

In an email to ThinkAdvisor, Milevsky said that the public’s interest in the 4% rule was understandable but was also “getting tiresome.”

“It’s getting tiresome to repeat the same things over (and over) again,” Milevsky said, referring to the planning industry’s cautionary view of using rules of thumb in such a complex domain. “Using the 4% rule for retirement in 2024 … is just passe. Period. The (scholarly) world of financial practice has moved on to much more comprehensive and rigorous approaches.”

Milevsky, who is also a consultant to U.S. financial firms, has been writing about a number of alternative frameworks for income planning, for example using annuities in conjunction with an intelligent drawdown rate. Other planners are bringing forward new frameworks and metrics beyond simple probabilities of success and failure, including analyzing the magnitude of failure in Monte Carlo simulations.

Bringing such metrics and strategies into the planning effort allows advisors and their clients to move beyond binary planning scenarios and to embrace a new degree of flexibility in the planning process, one that can help their clients maximize spending in retirement while protecting them from the worst-case scenario of retirement bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, Milevsky said, the general public, and even many in the advisor community, tend not to read such research — unless they are students who are tested on the material.

The Income Faucet

“Think of the process of washing your dishes in your sink, efficiently,” Milevsky said. “The 4% rule for retirement income is really about the aperture or rate at which the faucet should be opened, which indeed is part of the overall process of washing dishes. But there is so much more to the process.”

Oher factors include soap quality, scrubbing utensils, the depth of the sink and even the temperature, according to Milevsky — let alone the degree and nature of the dirtiness of the dishes.

“Back in the 1990s when the 4% rule was designed, people were just learning how to wash dishes, so it was all about the faucet,” Milevsky said. “In 2024, cleaning dishes is much more sophisticated.”

Another important warning for clients to hear is that people today tend to live much longer in retirement than they did 30 years ago when the 4% rule was first tabulated, and empirical data shows retirement spending fluctuates a lot based on people’s real-world needs.

Still, the 4% rule remains ubiquitous, and it is even recommended by some financial advisors.

Such advisors may be steering their clients toward the dreaded retirement income death spiral, which is the inevitable result of at-risk clients failing to carefully monitor the effect of annual spending or market drops on their overall financial plan. Advisors who use the 4% rule might also be causing some clients to significantly underspend.

Why Rules of Thumb Resonate

The news article chided by Milevsky doesn’t cover new ground, but it does provide an important reminder about what is a reasonable starting point for portfolio withdrawals and what is not, according to David Blanchett, managing director and head of retirement research for PGIM DC Solutions.

“If you look at the landscape of research and pundits around a safe initial portfolio withdrawal rate, you can see anywhere from 2% to 8%, with 4%-ish tending to be where most people end up,” Blanchett said.

“I think that’s probably a little low, where 5% is probably more accurate when you incorporate concepts like retirees have some flexibility when it comes to spending and almost all retirees have some existing guaranteed lifetime income,” Blanchett added. Even those without a pension or annuities can expect to rely on Social Security, for example.

Ultimately, Blanchett said he likes “rules of thumb that are reasonable, not sensationalized.”

“While this doesn’t necessarily cover new ground, that doesn’t mean reminders can’t be useful, especially since most financial planning software is based on an analysis very similar to what’s in the piece,” Blanchett said.

Leaving Money on the Table

Another important factor to point out about the news article is the time period and market conditions considered, according to Michael Finke, the professor and Frank M. Engle Chair of Economic Security at the American College of Financial Services.

“The article highlights one of the two periods during the 2000s where new retirees got hammered with a poor sequence of investment returns,” Finke pointed out. “It also makes the important point that following the 4% rule would leave an investor with about $400,000 of their original $1 million.”

If a person retired at 65 in 2000, as is the case in the news article, that means they’re now around  89 years old, spending $75,000 a year after inflation adjustments from a portfolio of $400,000.

“The article makes it appear that spending 5% or 6% of your balance at the beginning of retirement is far too risky. I disagree,” Finke said. “I think the bigger risk is failing to spend the money when you can enjoy it the most, and then continuing to maintain the same after-inflation lifestyle when you’re less likely to be going on European vacations or buying a new convertible.”

The article also ignores the fact that a client can spend more if they take a portion of their bond portfolio and buy an income annuity to reduce longevity risk, Finke said.

“Most retirement experts agree that the fixed spending strategy is outdated and doesn’t match how people spend money in retirement,” he said.

Pictured: Moshe Milevsky


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.