Making Your Money Last
Increase Your Retirement Income
This new money-for-life strategy creates both guaranteed income and growth potential.
By Mary Beth Franklin, Senior Editor
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, November 2009
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
In the midst of the stock-market meltdown in October 2008, Arthur Szu-tu, a relatively new retiree at 60, was gripped with fear and anxiety. He had no pension, he was too young to collect Social Security benefits, and he was relying completely on his savings. "Intellectually, I knew I couldn't cash out my stocks because I might live another 35 years and I would need the higher investment returns that come from stocks," says Szu-tu, a former technology manager from Syracuse, N.Y. "But emotionally, it was really scary."
As retirees watched their account balances plummet, many were advised to reduce their withdrawals or go back to work to preserve their nest eggs. "The thought of becoming a Wal-Mart greeter or McDonald's counter boy did not allow me to sleep at night," quips Szu-tu. He decided that he would rest easier if he mentally separated his investments into two groups: cash and bonds that could sustain him through his initial years of retirement, and stock funds that he would leave untouched until they could recover and grow.
Without realizing it, Szu-tu had stumbled on an alternative income model that has been kicking around in some retirement-planning sectors for more than 20 years but attracted little attention until recently. As long as the stock market was booming -- and bonds performed well when stocks tanked -- the so-called 4% rule for systematically withdrawing retirement income from an investment portfolio worked well.
That rule of thumb became the gold standard for creating sustainable retirement income. According to the 4% rule, if you invest in a moderately risky portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, you can initially withdraw 4% of your assets, increase that amount in subsequent years to keep pace with inflation, and still have a 90% probability of not running out of money over a 30-year retirement.
Probabilities are fine -- until you become a statistic. The recent bear market was so severe and so unusual (because virtually every asset class, except Treasury bonds, suffered severe losses) that it has called into question even that conservative strategy. The biggest threat to retirement wealth is withdrawing too much money from a shrinking nest egg, because there may not be enough left to benefit from the inevitable market rebound. Retirees were urged to skip their annual inflation adjustments -- or, in cases of severe investment losses, to reset their 4% distribution schedule based on their new, lower balance.
Income for life. Philip Lubinski, a financial planner in Denver, has spent more than two decades advising clients on how to prepare for retirement. "If it weren't for inflation, cash and bonds would be all you need," says Lubinski. But even with modest inflation of 3% a year, your buying power would be cut in half in about 25 years, so you need to invest for future growth, too. When you add stocks to your portfolio, however, you also add risk.
In the 1980s, Lubinski began working on an investment strategy that would provide secure income in the early years of retirement and shift riskier stock investments to a longer-term portfolio. He divided clients' assets into five-year increments, and funded each with enough money and appropriate investments to provide income for that period of retirement.
The first phase of this "income for life" model focuses on guaranteed income. In a high-interest-rate environment, a ladder of certificates of deposit with staggered maturities would work well. But in today's low-interest-rate climate, a five-year immediate-payout annuity gives you more bang for the buck.
Phase two focuses on conservative income-generating investments, such as a bond ladder or a deferred annuity, that can be converted to an income annuity in years six through ten. Each subsequent phase allocates a little less money and directs it toward assets that are slightly riskier. The goal is to refill the immediate-income bucket every five years. It takes a minimum of $250,000 to implement this strategy.
In retirement, "clients are more concerned about reliability of income than about return on investment," says Lubinski. "You can't chase both at the same time." But you can achieve both goals if you compartmentalize your money based on short-term, medium-term and long-term needs.
Now Lubinski spends much of his time training other financial advisers to use his model. And demand is growing. For a more in-depth explanation of the income-for-life model, go to www.iflmmovie.com, where you can also search for planners who incorporate this strategy in their practice.
A sideways pyramid. Jim Coleman, head of Coleman Financial Advisory Group (www.colemanadvisorygroup.com), in Waterbury, Conn., has added his own twist to the income-for-life model. When describing the strategy to clients, he tells them to think of a classic risk pyramid, which puts the safest investments (such as bank accounts and money-market funds) at the bottom and layers progressively riskier investments (such as bonds and stock funds) building to a peak.
In the classic model, even if your investments are diversified, all your assets are at risk at the same time. Coleman flipped the pyramid on its side so that you tap the most conservative, risk-free investments at the beginning of your retirement timeline and let the riskier investments grow until the later years. Your most aggressive assets will have years -- and possibly even decades -- to grow, creating a source of stable retirement income in the future. "With this divide-and-conquer strategy, you can have the best of both worlds," says Coleman.
KipTip: A New Angle on the Risk Pyramid
This alternative model for retirement withdrawals delivers current income and future returns.
With a traditional risk-pyramid model, you use your safest investments -- such as bank accounts and certificates of deposit -- to build the foundation of your portfolio. Then you layer riskier investments on top, adding bonds, followed by various types of stock funds and alternative investments that might include commodities and real estate. Diversification spreads your risk, but it doesn't guarantee that you won't lose money.
By flipping the risk pyramid on its side, you can align your retirement timeline with your investment strategy. Fund your immediate income needs with risk-free investments, such as CDs or an immediate annuity, and gradually increase the risk (and potential return) of other investments. Every five years, use investment returns to replenish your guaranteed income.


Tags:
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy



Reader Comments (21)
Posted by: Alan at 10/08/2009 04:39:24 PM
These types of plans are a formula for disaster. People need to manage their retirement money. Currently I am about 70% in very aggressive mutual funds. I watch the various funds on a daily basis. When the fund that I am in looks like it is going south I pull out and invest in a fund that is growing. If all funds are losing i go for a fixed income fund to park in until the market starts to rebound. I may move my money several times over a relativly short period of time. This has been very successful for me. The key is management of your money, you should watch it daily and react quickly to market trends.
Posted by: Jack at 10/09/2009 10:59:15 AM
If you are going to go in and out of funds, you are more likely to lose based on the fees and poor timing. Case in point, the magellan fund in the 80s. Holds the record for best growth over a 10 year period, averaged 33.33% growth a year, and 80 percent of the people investing in that fund LOST money because they were trying to time it. Good luck with that
Posted by: Chris at 10/10/2009 07:32:06 AM
@Alan...Your way of gambling with your retirement money has nothing to do with investing! However, it hurts your fellow MFD investors by driving up fees and making it harder for the fund managers to implement a consistent strategy because they have to deal with in- and outflow! The Sideway Pyramid may really help many average investors keep both feet in the market throughout bad times (most sell near the bottom), and as such could be an important tool! I always argued for plenty growth at all times with quarterly re-balancing which is correct in theory, but it's hard to stomach for many. The Sidesway Pyramid may be the key to make people keep a cool head.
Posted by: Sean at 10/10/2009 09:03:52 AM
I agree Jack. You might get lucky and make money from time to time by trying to time the market with mutual funds. But the problem with that is fund performance usually always lags market performance. And by the time you either buy into it or sell out of it you may have missed the boat. Plus by moving into a fund because it is 'growing' is contrary to the old saying 'buy low sell high' since when you get into a 'growing' fund your buying high. I've been a financial advisor through 2 recessions and what has held my clients through is buying funds that work and sticking through them.
Posted by: Ed at 10/10/2009 11:11:47 AM
I was doing that with my IRA and got slapped with excessive trading and my account was locked for 90 days.
Posted by: scott at 10/11/2009 11:50:08 AM
good luck with both strategies. i'm just wondering how old is alan? are you going to be able to manage at this level when you hit your 80's. there were a lot of "smart mone"y people who lost a lot of money over the past year. and, even if they didn't, they lost ground to inflation. put it in an annuity and leave the risk to the ins company. In this way, as Jack says, you won't have to worry about market timing.
Posted by: denise at 10/11/2009 01:19:01 PM
Although I am not a market timer I do agree with Alan's strategy to keep watch on how his funds are doing. This is not a buy and hold market, if it ever was.I am not a lover of mutual funds due to capital gains every year whether the fund in in the black or red. Fixed annuities sound good but I worry about the financial soundness of the company behind them And with these historically low rates they are just a little better than CD ladder. Nothing sounds good right now and I'm not the only one who thinks so seeing all the money n Money markets and CD's.
Posted by: John at 10/12/2009 12:08:56 AM
...Im still looking for a more in-depth explanation!
Posted by: mike at 10/15/2009 12:32:26 AM
to denise's point about the strength of the annuity provider, Contact the dept of insurance in your home state and determine the amount of that state's guarantee fund for annuity policies...if for example your state has a $300k guarantee fund, than usuallly the first $300k in premium placed with an annuity writer will be covered by the state guarantee fund. And, check with your state, but many states guarantee the limit by each company you buy an annuity from. Most state-guaranteed funds are very solvent (and most of these funds are not part of the state's general or budgeted money). Also,get quotes from some highly rated companies and take 5-year monthly payments, until interest rates increase then you can buy longer term annuities, even lifetime with guarantee periods or joint and survivor. Maybe the stock market today is a traders market, not an investors market!?!
Posted by: crashdamage1957 at 10/17/2009 09:24:09 PM
I think that the 4% rule along with a balanced asset allocation plan still works MOST of the time for retirement assets. This sideways pyramid thing does not make any sense at all to me. Maybe im not reading it correctly, but if you tap only income funds in the early years of retirement and thus end up with an equity -only protfolio in the later years as this strategy suggests, that makes the portfolio MORE risky, not less. I'm sticking with my asset allocation plan 60% equity/40% bonds cna short term cash, adjusting it periodically as needed. Im not market timing, I just maintain that allocation, give or take a few % points either way, and i try not to worry about it either. this personal finance stuff interests me, but so do so many other things that are WAY more fun, so im also mindful of my personal time "asset allocation" as well ;)
Posted by: Mary Beth Franklin at 10/20/2009 02:57:08 PM
Hi all, Mary Beth Franklin here, author of this article. Thanks for all your comments. In response to CrashDamage's comments, the idea is to keep refilling your income bucket every five years from your other assets. For example, after relying on an immediate payout annuity for the first five years (a five-year term annuity, not a lifetime annuity), you could tap your second bucket that might have been funded with a bond ladder or deferred annuity to create income for years six through 10. Sell enough winning assets from your stock portfolio in your 10th year or so to create a five-year income bucket for years 11 through 15 and so on. I hope this explanation helps.
Posted by: crashdamage1957 at 10/21/2009 01:27:35 AM
Yes, Mary Beth , thanks for the explanation; that does indeed make sense to me when you put it that way.I t seems to be in line with the concept of keeping a few years worth of expenses available in a stable asset fund like CD's and high yield savings accounts to be better positioned to ride out dips in the equity and bond markets. I'm less keen on the annuity recomendation, however, in part because of the higher fees and commisions involved, and i also share some of the concerns that Denise and Mark raised.
Posted by: Paul Oliver at 10/26/2009 09:51:19 AM
Mary Beth, you state in the article that it takes a min of $250k for this strategy. How is that amount broken up into each of the 5 year holding periods? Thanks.
Posted by: Mary Beth Franklin at 10/27/2009 09:04:07 AM
Hi, this Mary Beth, author this article. To CrashDamage: There's a lot of misinformation about annuities. Yes, deferred variable annuities with income guarantees or withdrawal benefits guarantees can be very expensive. But a short-term immediate payout annuity, which I'm suggesting as an alternative to a CD ladder in today's low-interest rate environment, is a simple, inexpensive product. You can get an idea of how much income you can buy at www.annuityshopper.com. As to Paul Oliver's question about how to divvy up your assets to make this strategy work: several planners I interviewed recommended a minimum of $250,000 in total assets, noting that about half of your assets would cover your first 10 years of guaranteed income and the other half would be invested in a variety of stocks and alternative investments for the long haul. There's no set formula, but the larger the pot of money, the more opportunity to divvy it up into different asset classes. Without sufficient assets, it's harder to create a truly diversified portfolio for the outlying years. Hope this helps, and thanks for visiting our Web site.
Posted by: Peter Gallagher at 10/30/2009 05:16:40 PM
Hi Mary,..any idea how to factor defined benefit lifetime annuity payments into the sideways pyramid allocation? I think it would replace a portion of the secure income component but not sure how to factor it in. Thanks for this article. It was very helpful!
Posted by: Aubrey at 11/02/2009 07:34:07 PM
I have been a financial planner over 30 years and find this investment concept an excellent planning tool for someone entering or in retirement who need another "pension" they can count on....and let those volatile investments time to GROW....I really appreciate this article.
Posted by: Justin at 11/02/2009 07:46:59 PM
Why not simply use a fixed indexed annuity?
Posted by: Robert at 11/03/2009 07:12:05 AM
I believe that this idea employs an Asset DEDICATION model rather than an asset allocation approach (terms not mine). That is, assets are dedicated to designated time frames --0-5;5-10,etc. I have been using this approach fairly sucessfully for about 20 years except that once each year(my birthday) I refill my 0-5 year income category from assets that have increased for that year.(Again, this approach was not my idea) If none has increased, I continue using the income category,thus preventing the action of having to withdraw from declining assets. It seems clear from the 2008 experience that typical asset allocation models weren't effective for us retirees I am 68 years old and withdrawing from my IRA for iving expenses. Thank you for this timely article and for the interesting posts.
Posted by: Roy at 03/30/2010 06:58:18 PM
Safe, but at what cost? The old method of dividends with systematic liquidation needs work, but this largely fixed income portfolio is highly susceptible to inflation risk and would have been a disaster during the 1970s. This "buckets of money approach" is WAY too conservative for the average retiree. The concept of using different buckets to draw from is excellent and a big improvement, but this is not the right solution for most people. This is a reaction to 2008 and has not and will not stand the test of time.
Posted by: Roy at 03/30/2010 07:13:46 PM
Mary Beth, Fixed annuities are extremely high cost investments. They pay very high commissions to agents and are highly profitable to insurance companies which turn around and benefit from investing those deposits in long term bonds, real estate and stocks. Just because investors and journalists like you do not understand the concept of opportunity cost or understand how an insurance company or agent is compensated for their products does not make them cheap. Variable annuities with a lifetime income benefit invested in 70% stocks and 30% bonds have averaged over 10% a year since 1985 net of expenses. If you backtest variable annuities through any retirement period (25 years) they have provided far more protection against inflation than fixed annuities without the risk of running out of income or losing principal. There are no load and fee based annuities that are very low cost. Even the higher cost variable annuities offer a far better VALUE than fixed annuities or this heavy bond portfolio.
Posted by: Doris at 05/31/2010 12:19:59 PM
Imagine my surprise when I read this article after I employed this strategy to my portfolio. I am currently a retired federal employee and this is what I did last June 2009 in preparation for my imminent retirement. I took what I considered to be five years worth of supplemental living expenses and rolled it over from the TSP plan to an IRA at my local bank. My purpose was to leave the balance in my TSP untouched for at least five years (until I reached age 67) and the remainder would hopefully grow back to the original amount. I then could take monthly withdrawals from the TSP(if I needed to) or just leave it alone until age 70 1/2. So far, even with the current market being in the dumps I have managed to earn 9 1/2% on the remaining balance. I keep a close eye on it and of course, I am not rocket scientist when it comes to investing, but this strategy is working quite well for me.