AssetBuilder Inc, - Registered Invesment Advisor - Simple Investing Smart Future
in

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

Take More From Your Nest Egg As You Age

Q: You have often cautioned against withdrawing more than 5 percent a year from retirement funds. Would you modify this rule of thumb for someone who retires later, such as age 75 or 80?

In the case of required minimum distributions from IRAs, a person deferring retirement could take the RMD and invest it outside of the IRA rather than spending it until he finally needed the money at age 75 or 80.

Also, even if the person retired at 65 and had the means to avoid using his rollover IRA to live on, inflation might eventually catch up, and he would need to begin spending his retirement funds at age 75 or 80. -- A.T., Cedar Hill, Texas

A: The older you are, the more liberal you can be with distributions from your nest egg. The reason for this is simple: The shorter your life expectancy, the larger the distributions you can make without danger of running out of money.

But don't start to party yet.

While most of the research says you can safely start with a withdrawal rate of 4 percent to 5 percent a year, a newer school of thought believes the safe withdrawal rate depends on how stocks are priced at the time you start making withdrawals.

If stocks were cheap and selling around eight times trailing earnings and offering high dividend yields, for instance, history shows that you could easily withdraw more than 5 percent a year. That would have made 1980 or 1981 good years to retire.

But if stocks were expensive and selling at a high multiple of earnings and offering low dividend yields, history shows that a higher withdrawal rate can be fatal to your nest egg. That would have made 2000 or 2001 bad years to retire.

One of the best ways to deal with this uncertainty is to turn a portion of your portfolio into a life annuity each year. You'll lose the principal, but your income will increase. You'll be able to continue with a 4 percent to 5 percent withdrawal rate on your nest egg but can enjoy the higher income from your life annuity.

According to http://www.immediateannuities.com/, for instance, a 65-year-old man can buy a lifetime income of $852 a year with $10,000. But the same amount will buy a lifetime income of $948 at 70 and $1,148 at 75. As you would expect, all of these amounts are substantially higher than the 4 percent or 5 percent safe withdrawal guideline.

But don't expect miracles. Annuitizing will do nice things, but it won't do wonders.

Q: I have always heard negative things about annuities, and my financial adviser is advising me to put all my money in one. It is called Allianz Life MasterDex 10 fixed index annuity. Please help me understand if this is a good decision or not. I am 48 and hope to retire at 59 1/2. -- G.R., by e-mail

A: The first thing you need to understand is that you are not dealing with a "financial adviser." You are dealing with a salesperson who carries a card that says he is a financial adviser, consultant, whatever. The rude fact is that 100 percent of your salesperson's income comes from sales commissions, and the product being sold carries a commission that is better than most -- for him.

Your salesperson wants to make a sale, collect a commission, and move on to his next prospect. He or she may be a devoted mother, a doting father, and an active member of your church or social group, but you are just red meat in the prospect book. I suggest that you read, very carefully, what you will lose if don't hold this product for a long time.

One of the best rules of thumb in personal finance is that when someone wants to sell you the one product that will solve all your financial ills, you need to hold onto your wallet or purse and leave the room as quickly as possible.

Comments

 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott:

I suggest you do a better job at proofreading your column. Being somewhat surprised by the annuity payouts you listed in this morning's column I went to the website. By the way, to be precise it's immediateannuities.com. When I entered age 70 and $100,000 in the calculator (NOT 10,000) I got nowhere the $948 you listed, but rather in the $600 - $700 range depending on survivor option. The only payout that would have come near your amount for $100,000 was for a single life 10 year pay option.

At this point it would appear you owe your readers a significant correction.

Richard

From Scott Burns:

I do make errors in columns. And there are times when both editors (my syndicate editor and the editor at the newspaper that publishes the column) don't catch them.

The "error" that you see, however, comes from your mis-reading of the column. The figures I gave in the column were annual incomes from an annuity. That means you need to multiply whatever figure you get on www.immediateannuities.com by 12 because they provide a monthly income figure and there are 12 months in a year.

Entering the same ages today for a $10,000 deposit I got a monthly income of $69 for a 65 year old ($828 a year), $77 for a 70 year old ($924 a year), and $92 for a 75 year old ($1,104 a year). Scaling up to $100,000, a 65 year old would have a monthly income of $691 or $8292 a year. If you divide that by 10, you get $829.20. Those are figures for life-only annuities in Texas as of this morning. They are slightly different from the newspaper figures because the database changes on a regularly basis, usually driving by interest rates. Offers with different terms, such as 10 years guaranteed, etc. produce lower figures because the insurance company is likely to be paying out for a longer period of time, on average. Similarly, there are small differences between offers in different states.
December 14, 2006 10:16 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Re:Column in The Dallas Morning News of December 14, 2006. Proof reader or some one apparently dropped a decimal place in calculating monthly income from an investment of $10000. $1148/month for a 70 year old man is ten times too much.I would like some of this if correct.

Riley

From Scott Burns:

The column refers to annual incomes, not monthly incomes. I took the monthly income figures from www.immediateannuities.com and multiplied it by 12. If you read it again, it will make sense to you.  
December 14, 2006 10:41 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Hi Scott,

Let me first say that I have been an Exclusive Insurance Agent for 21 years. I have a passion for helping people with there Auto, Home and other lines of property and casualty insurance. I have a deeper passion for providing income insurance for breadwinners that have families to take care of in the event of an untimely death. I have never pushed whole life nor term, only explaining how each policy works.

I have my Series 6 and 63 and introduce our products to my clients. I can sell mutual funds, variable/fixed annuities, and variable life.

Your article today suggests that my clients aren't dealing with a financial advisor but merely a salesperson who's 100 percent of my income comes from commission and the product being sold is better than most.

All I ask is that you stick to the facts pros and cons of the question being asked by your reader. My commission has nothing to do with helping clients protect there original investment from ever going down, being paid the highest value it ever reaches or a 5% guarantee for life. I explain that there is an additional fee for this option. We also automatically rebalance the portfolio.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't other "financial advisors" ask clients to put there money in fee based investments that range from 1 to 2 percent? Maybe there is a product like the one explained above that carries a 1.65% fee for 10 years, dropping to .60 thereafter.

Sound like a good product to me.

Scott, I have read your columns religiously for 7 years looking for pros and cons in the financial arena. Thank you.

Thank You...Striving To Be The Best,

Insurance Professional Rockwall Texas

From Scott Burns:

Don't get bent out of shape. Just recognize that there are some dimwits in your business who are completely commission driven. I'm sure they cause you embarrassment.

The reader was being solicited to invest 100 percent of his money in a single investment. That spells s-a-l-e-s-m-a-n to me. It ought to spell the same to you. There is no sign of fiduciary care in the proposal.
December 14, 2006 10:44 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott,

Just so you know, the Master Dex 10 is a product that the client can never really walk away with their money. The client has to hold the product for a minimum of 5 years and then annuitize for a minimum of 10 years to get the full accumulation value. If the client is looking for income upon retirement, it may be a good fit. Having said that I would never have a client put all of their money into this product, it really ties the clients hands in terms of flexibility. Hope that helps!

Kurt

From Scott Burns:

Thanks for your note. Some Texas estate attorneys have characterized the product as a good way to transfer about 30 percent of trust wealth to the vendor. I think these products are just too sticky and their sales are too commission driven.
December 14, 2006 10:52 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott:

Your comment about looking at our investment portfolio expressed as a multiple of trailing earnings reminds me of the story of two identical brothers.

Both retired at the same age with identical investment portfolios and lived - yes - the identical number of years. But one died broke and the other rich - why?? I answered - "The one who died rich was frugal while the other was not" No - wrong answer - their spending was identical. The answer was that the rich brother retired at the bottom of the market while the poor brother retired at the top of the market.

I thought that Bengen's SafeMax withdraw strategy of 4% to 4.5% adjusted for annual inflation took market adjustments like this into account? Also, where is a good link to find the historical and current overall market valuation expressed as a multiple of trailing earnings?

Thanks again for very insightful writing.

  

From Scott Burns:

Bengen's approach tests against historical data. The new safe withdrawal school of thought --- call them the Valuation Revisionists---would note that none of the historical data covers the low level of dividend yields now provided by common stocks.

In the historical data, most investment periods started with portfolio yields near 4 percent. Today, portfolio yields would run from under 2 percent to just over 3.5 percent. As a result, you'll need to make asset sales immediately in order to meet a 4 percent annual draw.

The problem we're dealing with here is called "variance sink"--- if income is short of annual draw, you have to sell assets. The more assets you have to sell, the greater the impact of variance sink--- the damage caused by having to sell assets in a down market.
December 14, 2006 5:26 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott:

I'm feeling a bit "thick" trying to understand your response. Aren't dividends only part of the overall portfolio return.

This year we will do in excess of 11% which is not great by the S&P but we're probably about 45% bonds, etc.

Where can we find information on historical and current overall dividend yields as well as equity valuations as a multiple of trailing earnings?

Thanks again

  

From Scott Burns:

Dividends and interest ARE only part of a portfolio return. The remainder is in capital gains or losses. This has been a very good year for investors. According to Morningstar figures the average "moderate allocation" fund--- a 60/40 balanced fund--- returned 11.38 percent for the year. Needless to say, most of that return was from capital appreciation.

That return, however, isn't steady. There can be years in which the same funds lose money. If that happens and you continue to withdraw an increasing amount, it can become impossible for a portfolio to recover.

You can understand with an extreme example. Suppose you are withdrawing 4 percent from a 100 percent stock portfolio and it loses 50 percent. In the next year your 4 percent will be 8 percent of the remaining portfolio. Although it was less extreme, the market crash of 73-74 devastated many retirees because their income need rose with 7 percent inflation while their portfolios were cut in half.
December 16, 2006 11:37 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Dear Mr. Burns,

I am 61 years old, retired 6 years, and have begun to contemplate when and how to start withdrawing 4% to 5% of our investment portfolio (I'll go with 4%). Also, during the 25 or so years that we have actively invested, we have always automatically reinvested the dividends and capital gains. My question is how those reinvested gains affect the 4% withdrawal. Should we continue to reinvest the gains, or could they be channeled into a personal spending account as part of the 4% withdrawal, or even in addition to the 4% withdrawal?

Thank you.

Richard

  

From Scott Burns:

Most mutual fund companies are not operating on an "average cost" basis unless you specifically request otherwise and sell by lots or some other arrangement. This means a portion of the proceeds from a sale will be capital gains but the remainder will be non-taxable original investment. You might as well take current dividend distributions in cash because you have to pay taxes on them. What you do with capital gains distributions, which are also taxable, is more problematic but the safest course of action is to reinvest them in additional shares, understanding that a large distribution will require a large tax payment.

Reinvested capital gains should be unrelated to your 4 percent withdrawal. And you should not add distributed dividends to your 4 percent withdrawal. Ideally, you take 4 percent and pay proportionate taxes out of the proceeds. If you take 4 percent but have 6 percent in taxable distributions, then your taxes will take an unnaturally large portion of the cash and you'll need to make an adjustment--- withdraw enough more to cover the tax hit.
December 19, 2006 11:13 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott, there was an article in the Akron Beacon Journal of 1-15-07, titled " Inflation rules retirement " that caught my mother's attention. She is 85 years old, widowed with the present financial condition

1. Three annuities with a total principal value of $ 400,000, each annuity with a fixed interest of approx 4 %. Presently the total amount she receives from the three annuities monthly is $ 7,000. Of this $7,000, she is returning $ 3,500, to new annuity. Based on 12 months at $3,500 this is $42,000.

2. Your column suggested that no more than 4%( which would be $ 16,000 ) be taken from the retirement nest egg, yet my mother is taking 10.5 %.

Is she way out of bounds by taking this much, or are we missing something ???

Thanx

Chris

From Scott Burns:

How she is doing depends on how long she lives. The 4 to 5 percent withdrawal rate that many advisors set is based on a diversified portfolio with a higher, but much more variable, return.   The spending rules are also usually in the context of the joint life expectancy of a couple, about 25 years if they are in their early to mid 60s.

Your mother, however, is widowed and age 85. Her life expectancy is about 7 years, meaning that 50 percent of the women her age will die within 7 years and 50 percent will live longer than 7 years. If she withdraws at a constant rate, it will take 12 years to exhaust her $400,000. In 12 years 6 of every 7 women her age will have died, according to the U.S. Life Tables for 2002. So there is about an 85 percent chance that your mother will die before she runs out of money--- provided her expenses remain constant. As a practical matter, rising prices and increasing medical costs are likely to put her into financial difficulty before that time.

Before you panic, remind yourself that she is in much better financial shape than most people. The return she is getting from her fixed income annuities is one of the reasons you don't find much enthusiasm for insurance based products in my column--- she would be doing better in most money market funds.
January 16, 2007 11:33 AM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, will be published this spring by Simon & Schuster. "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife divide their time between Dallas and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved.