About to Retire? Check Your Stock Exposure--Quickly
There are a lot of people thinking of retiring now because the bull market has boosted their 401(k)s. But they may need to re-evaluate their allocations. And quickly. Over the past decade, the S&P 500 has returned more than 13% on an annualized basis. And studies show that this is exactly when a lot of people choose to retirethe height of a bull market, when their portfolio is plump. But those same studies show that people who retire at bull-market peaks have a higher chance of running out of money. That is because they wrongly assume big returns will continue to pile upand then they lose a big chunk of cash when bear markets arrive.
So, investors about to retire may want to re-evaluate how their money is allocated. To assist in that effort, we ran a simulation showing how various portfolio allocations performed for someone who had retired in 2000, the beginning of a bear market, followed by another later in the decade. We cherry-picked a retirement date with bad years at the beginning of the period, to counter the tendency for investors to focus on recent bull-market returns. For withdrawals, we applied one version of the 4% rule that advisers often use, assuming retirees take out 4% of their account the first year, and then increase the dollar value of the initial amount by 3% in each subsequent year to account for inflation. Our simulation didnt account for taxes, however.
We had our theoretical investor retire in 2000 with $500,000 fully invested in the S&P 500. Using the 4% rule, that nest egg eroded to less than $200,000 at the end of 2018. Why? Although the S&P 500 produced a 4.86% annualized return over the 18 years of our studyand, of course, 13% returns from 2009 through 2018it experienced two declines of roughly 50% (2000-02 and 2008-early 2009) within the first decade. Bad early years in a withdrawal phase can crush a portfolio; the double whammy of withdrawals and losses means there isnt enough money or time left for a roaring market later on to restore a portfolio to its original balance later.
A $500,000 investment in a balanced allocation (60% stocks, 40% bonds) would have been worth around $424,000 in 2018 using the 4% withdrawal rule. And a conservative portfolio (30% stocks/70% bonds) would have had around $508,000 at the end of 2018. That is mainly because bond-heavy portfolios protected against big losses in the early years. Bonds annualized returns for the whole period of the study were on par with those of stocks4.84% for bonds vs. 4.86% for stocksbut bond returns held steady in the market downturns. In 2000-02, bonds gained a cumulative 33.5%, and they returned 5.2% in 2008-09. All of this means investors on the verge of retirement should contemplate having no more than 60% stock exposure and might prefer less.
(snip)
Whether or not investors use these funds, they should think about their current allocations or consult their financial adviser. The question they need to ask is: If they are going the traditional route, and consuming 3% to 4% of their saved assets every year, do they really want to bet that the bull market will continue?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-to-retire-check-your-stock-exposurequickly-11564970680 (paid subscription)
Could not copy the markings so here are the descriptions:
The amounts are from 2000 to 2019. The starting point is $500,000
The black line, on top is Conservative 30 stocks/70 bonds
The blue line, in the middle is Balanced 60 stocks/40 bond
and the grey line, at the bottom is S&P 500 Total Return
SCantiGOP
(14,296 posts)The S&P was around 1,500 in 2000. It is now around 2,900, or about twice as much.
It got down to the 700s in 2009 after the market crash.
customerserviceguy
(25,187 posts)and look for a good "mattress fund" that won't be hurt by negative interest rates that some money-market securities invest in.
elleng
(136,595 posts)but wasn't investing til later, when I went from 66% equities; just now, reallocating to 50/50. NEVER as much as $500,000.
We shall see.
progree
(11,463 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2019, 02:23 PM - Edit history (5)
and finds that high stock to bond allocations have the highest survival rates (last "n" years) under various withdrawal scenarios, where n ranges from 20 on up. The June 2019 issue looked at scenarios with at n = 35, 40,45, ..., 60 years.
For 5% and above withdrawal rates, the 100% stock allocation had the highest likelihood of survival (the other allocations were 75% stock, 60% stocks, 50% stocks, 40% stocks, 25% stocks, and 0% stocks, with the remainder being in bonds in all cases.
About 2 or 3 times a year it seems, a wide variety of other authors have been reporting on their simulations, with their own variations, like varying the allocations in different "glide paths" but the end results have all been pretty much the same -- your chance of your portfolio running out is lowest with high equity allocations.
Yes, the market is way up from the 2009 market bottom, but not all that crazy up from 2000 or 2007 for example.
There have been people here have been posting ever since about 2011 or so that the bull market was coming to an end. That stocks were overvalued, blah blah, that the Plunge Protection Team is the only thing keeping it going, and they can't keep it going indefinitely.
Timing the market is about impossible. Time in the market works far better than most efforts to time the market.
I tried timing the market. After the big run-up in stocks in the 1980's and into the 90's, all the "smart" people were saying this has been the greatest bull market in history (the 1987 mini-crash was only about 2 years before new highs were reached), and the bull is tired and blah blah. I was one of the "smart" people that reduced my stock allocation in the early 1990's. And missed the huge run-up of most of the 90's (well, I kept 25% or so in stocks, fortunately, but would have been much better of course with 100% ).
The valuable lesson in that experience being that there's no sure way of knowing when the bull market has peaked, or how long a secular bullmarket will last (discounting short-term pullbacks). I'm sure if someone knows, Warren Buffett would pay him or her to have lunch.
Also, bond returns suck right now, quite a lot lower than the average for the 2000-2018 period. I'm really supposed to start gnashing my teeth and flailing my breasts and go invest in 3-4% long bonds (and face interest rate risk) or 2-3% intermediate bonds? Really? WHY??
I was retired before, during, and after the housing bubble crash with no income (until 2017) other than from my investments, and have done just fine, thank you, with portfolio value well above what it was at the pre-housing bubble peak in 2007.
If I was worried about the very worst case, I would never leave the house.
Rather, I go with the allocation that is most likely to survive the longest, and that is 100% equity allocation for high (5% and up) withdrawal rates, and high stock to bond allocations (but not 100%) for lower withdrawal rates.
I'm in the lower withdrawal rate part of the spectrum, actually probably adding rather than withdrawing to my savings/investments thanks to Social Security and an annuity kicking in.
But I'm concerned that I will some day become a "high withdrawal rate" person. Fidelity estimates, for example, that a couple, both reaching age 65 in 2018 will need $280,000 over their lifetimes for OUT-OF-POCKET medical expenses ( https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/27/how-to-plan-for-higher-health-care-costs-in-retirement.html ). They are both on Medicare, so this is medical costs above and beyond those paid for by Medicare.
Nor does the $280,000 include long-term care (e.g. nursing homes, assisted living facilities), and it doesn't include most dental, eye, or hearing care.
Details about my asset allocation are at https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1121&pid=1692
More on my reasoning for stocks (besides the asset allocation simulations) is splattered all over the recent "How Different Generations Think About Investing" https://www.democraticunderground.com/11211641
PoindexterOglethorpe
(26,771 posts)increasing withdrawals by 3% every year for inflation. Only five years since 2000 has inflation been that high. So no wonder the hypothetical investor is on the edge of no money at all.
I'm 71 years old, and I take a bit less than 4% from my investments. I take it out on a monthly basis. That sum is about 25% of my monthly income. The rest is Social Security, two annuities, and a very small pension. Because I have those several income streams, my investments could drop by 50%, meaning I would need to cut my withdrawal by around that much. I'd still be okay. I'd still be able to meet all my expenses, have enough extra for various things I like to do (like attending science fiction cons). Right now I'm transferring a bit more than 10% of my cash flow to a savings account. I can then dip into that to pay for various luxuries like the trips I take. That could be cut way back and I'd be just fine.
I couldn't tell you off the top of my head just what percentages my investments are in different things, but I have a great financial guy, and it's probably about 60% in equities.
I also figure that, even though I hope to live well into my 90's (a solar eclipse I want to see is in 2045) I know that at some point I may not be able or willing to do the travelling I'm currently doing. I may also decide to move into independent/assisted living at some point, and that will probably cost a bit more than living in my own home has been. But I'd be selling this house, and while it's not yet paid off, I have decent equity in it which will help finance that move.
Oh, and I do have a policy that would cover a couple of years in a nursing home, if needed.