kitces.com | Nerd's Eye View - Retirement Planning

Do Our Brains Really Even Know How To Evaluate A Monte Carlo Analysis?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 17 May 2012 07:03:00 -0400

As a growing body of research shows, our brains are not quite the logical, rational decision-making machines we think they are – or at least, wish they could be. Instead, our brains take shortcuts; we substitute easier questions for difficult ones, often without realizing it, and respond accordingly with our words and our actions. This can be especially problematic in the world of financial planning, where we often ask clients to make difficult decisions with limited information. As a result, questions like “what is an acceptable probability of success/failure for your retirement plan?” often get switched for other questions, like “how intensely bad would you feel if your retirement plan failed?” While the questions are still similar, there is an important difference: if you have not clearly defined both the meaning of success and the meaning of failure, your clients may misjudge the intensity of the consequences, leading to an irrational and inappropriate decision about how much or how little “risk” to take.
Continue reading "Do Our Brains Really Even Know How To Evaluate A Monte Carlo Analysis?"

(How) Do You Estimate Your Client's Life Expectancy?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 03 May 2012 07:17:00 -0400

In order to do a financial plan for a client, it's necessary to determine the client's time horizon - which at the most fundamental level, is the time the client is expected to live. The client's life expectancy can impact the number of years of anticipated retirement, and even the age at which the client chooses to retire. Unfortunately, though, it's difficult to really estimate how long a client will live, and the consequences of being wrong and living to long can be severe - total depletion of assets. As a result, many planners simply select a conservative and arbitrarily long time horizon, such as until age 95 or 100, "just in case" the client lives a long time. Yet in reality, the life expectancy statistics are clear that the overwhelming majority of clients won't live anywhere near that long - unnecessarily constraining their spending and leading to a high probability of an unintended large financial legacy for the next generation. As a result, some planners are beginning to use life expectancy calculators to estimate a more realistic and individualized life expectancy for a client's particular time horizon. Will this become a new best practice?
Continue reading "(How) Do You Estimate Your Client's Life Expectancy?"

Adjusting Safe Withdrawal Rates To The Retiree's Time Horizon

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Tue, 01 May 2012 07:14:00 -0400

Most planners are familiar with the 4% safe withdrawal rate research, first established by Bill Bengen in 1994 and based upon a 30-year time horizon. However, a common criticism of the research is that many clients don't necessarily have a 30-year time horizon - it may be longer or shorter, depending on the client's individual planning needs and circumstances. Yet in reality, there is nothing about safe withdrawal rates that must apply only to a 30-year time horizon. In fact, research exists to demonstrate the safe withdrawal rate over a range of time horizons as short as 20 years (where the safe withdrawal rate rises as high as 5% - 5.5%) or even less, to as long as 40 years (where the safe withdrawal rate falls to 3.5%). And in turn, changing the time horizon and the withdrawal rate also affects the optimal asset allocation, making it slightly more equity-centric for longer time horizons, and far less equity-centric for shorter time horizons. In the end, this means that there is no one safe withdrawal rate; instead, there is a safe withdrawal rate matched to the time horizon of the client, whatever that may be!
Continue reading "Adjusting Safe Withdrawal Rates To The Retiree's Time Horizon"

Are We Overstating The Consequences Of Social Security's "Insolvency"?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:34:00 -0400

The latest release of the 2012 Social Security Trustees Report shows once again that the Social Security trust fund is not only heading for insolvency, but doing so at an increasingly rapid rate, with current projections showing total depletion by 2033. Yet the reality is that the Social Security trust fund is only used to pay Social Security benefits that can't be funded from Social Security taxes alone - which even by 2033 are projected to cover 75% of payments due! Consequently, for most financial planning clients, who may only rely on Social Security retirement benefits for 25%-50% of total retirement income (or even less in some cases), the impact may not really be very severe at all; a 25% reduction in Social Security payments that are only 25% of retirement income constitutes a 6.25% pay cut, that doesn't even occur for over 20 years! Are we overstating the impact of Social Security's fiscal woes for the average financial planning client?
Continue reading "Are We Overstating The Consequences Of Social Security's "Insolvency"?"

The Asymmetric Value of Delaying Social Security Benefits As The Ultimate Hedge

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:15:00 -0400

Despite a growing body of research suggesting that most retirees would benefit by delaying the onset of Social Security payments, the majority who are eligible still elect to begin receiving them as early as possible. In no small part, this appears to be attributable to a "take the money and run" mentality from retirees, who simply don't see the value of delaying as being worth the risk of foregoing benefits. And without a doubt, there is a material risk that the retiree will not live to the so-called "breakeven point" where the delay in benefits is worthwhile. However, what most retirees fail to recognize is that while there is a risk to delaying benefits and never fully recovering them, the upside for living past the breakeven point isn't just that the money is made back; it's that the retiree can make exponentially more. And in fact, these asymmetric results - where the retiree only risks a little by delaying, but stands to gain far more in the long run - are further magnified in situations where the client lives dramatically past life expectancy, experiences high inflation, and/or gets unfavorable portfolio returns - which are, in fact, three of the greatest risks to almost every retiree. As a result, the reality is that delaying Social Security benefits may actually be one of the best triple-hedges available to any retiree - simultaneously protecting against poor returns, high inflation, and longevity!

Continue reading "The Asymmetric Value of Delaying Social Security Benefits As The Ultimate Hedge"

Are Cash Reserve Retirement Strategies Really Necessary?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:30:00 -0400

For retirees who fear the impact of a market downturn on their spending, an increasingly popular strategy is just to hold several years of cash in a reserve account to accomplish near-term spending goals. As the logic goes, if there are years of spending money already available, the portfolio can avoid selling equities in a down market to raise the required cash, and clients don't have to sweat where their retirement income distributions will come from while waiting for the markets to recover. Yet the mathematics of rebalancing reveals in the truth, even clients following a standard rebalancing strategy don't sell equities in down markets, rendering the cash reserve strategy potentially moot. On the other hand, some benefits still remain - although aside from an indirect short-term tactical bet, the most significant impact of a cash reserve strategy may be more mental than real. Nonetheless, is the cash reserve strategy still a viable option for retirees? Or is it just another bucket strategy mirage?
Continue reading "Are Cash Reserve Retirement Strategies Really Necessary?"

Are Retirement "Bucket" Strategies An Asset Allocation Mirage?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:33:00 -0400

As baby boomers continue into their retirement transition, two portfolio-based strategies are increasingly popular to generate retirement income: the systematic withdrawal strategy, and the bucket strategy. While the former is still the most common approach, the latter has become increasingly popular lately, viewed in part as a strategy to help work around difficult and volatile market environments. Yet while the two strategies approach portfolio construction very differently, the reality is that bucket strategies actually produce asset allocations almost exactly the same as systematic withdrawal strategies; their often-purported differences amount to little more than a mirage! Nonetheless, bucket strategies might actually still be a superior strategy, not because of the differences in portfolio construction, but due to the ways that the client psychologically connects with and understands the strategy!
Continue reading "Are Retirement "Bucket" Strategies An Asset Allocation Mirage?"

Roth vs Traditional: The Four Factors That Determine Which Is Best

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:04:00 -0400

To Roth or not to Roth. It is a question that planners and their clients commonly face, whether making the decision regarding an annual contribution, or about converting (or not) an existing retirement account. Yet while the appeal for lifetime tax-free growth from a Roth may be appealing, the reality is that the Roth is not always the winning choice, and there are many myths and misunderstands about Roth accounts that make it difficult to know which is best. The reality is that there are four (and only four!) fundamental factors that determine whether a Roth will or not will be more effective than a traditional pre-tax retirement account. Some factors are always in favor of the Roth account, but others can work against the Roth account; in fact, blindly choosing a Roth and ignoring the relevant factors can actually lead to wealth destruction! By knowing the four factors and avoiding the Roth myths, though, planners and clients can be assured of making an effective wealth-building decision.
Continue reading "Roth vs Traditional: The Four Factors That Determine Which Is Best"

In Defense Of The 70% Replacement Ratio In Retirement

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:19:00 -0400

As prospective retirees struggle to figure out how much money they need to accumulate in order to retire, a key assumption is what anticipated spending will be in retirement. After all, the more spending that must be supported, the more assets that may be necessary (in addition to other income sources) to support that spending. Historically, a popular "rule of thumb" was to assume a replacement ratio of 70% to 80% in retirement, although in recent years this guidance has been lambasted by planners who suggest that client lifestyles tend to remain steady in retirement (or even increase in some cases), not decrease. Yet in reality, it appears that planners have been mis-applying the replacement ratio research, which is based on a percentage of pre-retirement income, not pre-retirement spending! As a result, it turns out the 70% replacement ratio for moderately affluent clients may be remarkably accurate, and in fact could be too high for some wealth clients!
Continue reading "In Defense Of The 70% Replacement Ratio In Retirement"

What's Your Longevity Assumption - Are Planners Being Too Conservative?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:34:01 -0400

Monte Carlo analysis has become a fairly widespread tool for financial planners to use to understand the implications of market volatility and return uncertainty on the ability of clients to achieve their goals. Yet the uncertainty in retirement isn't just about the returns that will be earned on investments that are necessary to support spending, but also how long that spending must last. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of mortality, though, most financial planners select a fixed - albeit conservative - time horizon for the portfolio, such as 30 years for a 65-year-old couple. But can this strategy make the plan too conservative? After all, a 90% probability of success - which corresponds to a 10% chance of failure - is actually only a 1.8% probability of failure when it assumes the couple will live until age 95 (given the low likelihood of a client actually surviving that long), and in turn means the client may be saving more, spending less, or retiring later than is really necessary! Which raises the question - are we being too conservative with our mortality/longevity assumptions?
Continue reading "What's Your Longevity Assumption - Are Planners Being Too Conservative?"

Is The Retirement Plan With The Lowest "Risk of Failure" Really The Best Choice?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:59:00 -0500

One of the primary virtues of using Monte Carlo analysis for evaluating a retirement plan is that it frames the conversation in terms of the probability of success and the risk of failure, rather than simply looking at how much wealth is left at the end of the plan. As a result, the focus of planning shifts from maximizing wealth, to maximizing the likelihood of success and minimizing the risk of failure. Yet the reality is that while "failure" from the Monte Carlo perspective means the client ran out of money before the end of the time horizon, in truth most clients will not simply continue to spend on an unsustainable path right to the bitter end. Instead, if the plan is clearly heading for ruin, clients begin to make adjustments. Some failures may be more severe than others, and consequently some plans may require more severe adjustments than others. But the bottom line is that a "risk of failure" is probably better termed a "risk of adjustment" instead. However, when viewed from that perspective, it turns out that the plan with the lowest risk of adjustment may not be the ideal plan for the client to choose!
Continue reading "Is The Retirement Plan With The Lowest "Risk of Failure" Really The Best Choice?"

Do Your Clients Spend More, Or Less, In Their Later Retirement Years?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:40:00 -0500

Estimating retirement expenses over the entire duration of a client's retirement years is a fundamental part of retirement planning. Yet there is surprisingly little agreement from planners about the spending behaviors of clients as they go through retirement. Some suggest that retirement spending rises as clients age, due to the accumulating impact of health care expenses. Others suggest that retirement expenditures decrease, as clients reduce their spending in areas like travel and restaurants. Still others suggest that retirement spending is relatively level and simply keeps pace with inflation, as the increases in one category (e.g., health care) offset the decreases in others (e.g., travel and restaurants) - which, notably, is also the implicit assumption of steady inflation-adjusted spending that underlies the research regarding safe withdrawal rates and how much income is sustainable from a portfolio. So which is it? A growing cadre of research suggests that in reality, client spending probably does decrease over time... with some notable exceptions. And if you don't use a proper assumption, you may force clients to save more than is needed, or retire later than is necessary!
Continue reading "Do Your Clients Spend More, Or Less, In Their Later Retirement Years?"

Why Merely Mediocre Returns Can Be Worse Than A Market Crash

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:43:25 -0500

With two market "crashes" in the past decade, prospective baby boomer retirees have grown increasingly afraid of the risk that the next market crash could topple their retirement if it comes at the wrong time. This fear has been exacerbated by the recent stream of research on safe withdrawal rates, that highlights how an unfavorable sequence of returns in the early years of retirement can derail a retirement plan. Yet the reality is that failure is dictated not simply by the magnitude of the market decline, but the speed at which it recovers. As a result, while clients are increasingly obsessed about the risk of a sharp decline in the markets (or a so-called "black swan event"), the true danger is actually an extended period of "merely mediocre" results that are uncommon but not rare, not a black swan market crash!
Continue reading "Why Merely Mediocre Returns Can Be Worse Than A Market Crash"

Do Your Retired Clients Really Experience Annual Inflation?

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:01:00 -0500

The long-term impact of inflation is a fundamental risk for retirees; a 60-year-old retired couple loses 50% of their purchasing power by age 85 at a mere 3% inflation rate. To plan for this, retirement projections typically assume an annual inflation adjustment, as does the research on safe withdrawal rates and sustainable retirement income. Yet many planners are quick to point out that no clients called the office on January 1st, 2012 to request their monthly distributions be adjusted from $3,000/month to $3,090/month to reflect the 3.0% increase in CPI in 2012. In fact, most clients rarely request to adjust their ongoing portfolio distributions more than once every several years. Does that mean retired clients don't really experience ongoing annual inflation? Or is the reality that they just handle it some other way?
Continue reading "Do Your Retired Clients Really Experience Annual Inflation?"

Congress Fires Warning Shot At Stretch IRAs, Threatens 5-Year Rule For All

nospam@example.com (Michael Kitces) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:38:00 -0500

The "stretch IRA" is a popular estate planning strategy, where the (typically non-spouse) beneficiary of the IRA stretches out required minimum distributions over his/her life expectancy; with a young beneficiary, such as a child or even grandchild, this can result in decades of tax deferral for a large portion of an inherited IRA. However, the planning technique may soon come to an end. As a part of the "Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012" to reauthorize and replenish the Highway Trust Fund for interstate highway projects, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has proposed a provision that would require inherited IRAs to be distributed within 5 years of the original owner's death, eliminating the ability to stretch. If passed, the new rules would take effect for all deaths that occur beginning in 2013. While the legislation - and the amendment to require IRAs to be liquidated within 5 years after death - is still just proposed at this point, and may not ultimately pass in its current form, the fact that an elimination of the stretch IRA rules was on the table at all suggests that the window may soon close on this particular planning technique.
Continue reading "Congress Fires Warning Shot At Stretch IRAs, Threatens 5-Year Rule For All"