Financial planners often work with averages. But the reality is that each bear market will be different from the norm. At the time that I write this, the depth of this particular drawdown does not even rank with the worst in history. Sure, it may still get worse, but that’s where we are today.
We may not want to hear about how things will get better, because the situation with the Covid-19 pandemic and its resulting prescription of social isolation and market downdrafts is scary. But, eventually, things will get better.
Keep in mind that things may get worse before they get better. The count of people with the virus will almost certainly increase. If you don’t have a source yet, you can keep up with it over here. But eventually, the Coronavirus epidemic will run out of steam. We will get back to our places of work. Kids will go back to school. Financial markets will right themselves out. We will revert to standard toilet paper buying habits. We will start going out to eat again. Life will become normal again.
Financially, the question is not just how bad will things get, but how long it will take for our nest eggs to rebuild, so we can put our lives back on tr
Hence, it could take us a while before we make it back to the previous market peak. However, we may want to look at the data differently. This graph shows that, historically, we have needed to achieve a return of 46.9% to recover from a bear market . According to Franklin Templeton calculations, these numbers can look daunting. However, they have been achieved and exceeded after every past downturn. While there is no guarantee, these numbers suggest that there will be strong returns once we have reached the bottom of the market. I like to think of this as an opportunity.
With the time that it takes for investments to grow and get your money back, there is time to take advantage of higher expected returns. For those who have resources available, this means that there is time to deploy your money at lower prices than has been possible in recent months.
Those of us who have diversified portfolios and are not in a position to make new investments, the opportunity is to rebalance to benefit from a faster upswing.
We know from history that every US stock market downturn was followed by new peaks at some point following.
Could this time be different?
Of course, that too is possible.
I like to think that the future will be better. We will still wake up in the morning looking to improve ourselves, make our lives better, and achieve our goals. We are still going to invent new technologies, fight global warming, and struggle for a more equitable society.
We are living through difficult times right now. Losses in our brokerage and retirement accounts are not helping. But we will get through this. Please reach out to me if you have specific questions or concerns.
Roth IRA accounts are well known for providing tax-free growth and retirement income within specific parameters. The catch is that contributions must be made with earned income that has been taxed already. In other words, Roth accounts aren’t exactly tax-free, they are merely taxed differently.
On the other hand, Traditional IRA retirement accounts are funded with pretax dollars, thereby reducing taxable income in the year of contribution. Then, distributions from Traditional IRA retirement accounts are taxed as income.
The Roth IRA is not tax-free, it is merely taxed differently
However, the tax benefit remains the most prominent factor in the Roth vs. Traditional IRA decision. To make the decision that helps you pay fewer lifetime taxes requires an analysis of current vs. future taxes. That will usually require you to enlist professional help. After all, you would not want to choose to contribute to a Roth to pay fewer taxes and end up paying more taxes instead!
As everyone’s circumstances will be different, it would be beneficial to check with a Certified Financial Planner® or a tax professional to plan a strategy that will minimize lifetime taxes, taking into account future income and projected taxes.
Check out our other posts on Retirement Accounts issues:
The SECURE Act makes several changes to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as well as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that are intended to expand retirement plan coverage for workers and increase savings opportunities. The SECURE Act also radically changes several techniques used for retirement and tax planning.
Some of the key provisions affecting employer retirement plans, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and Section 529 Plans included in the SECURE Act are as follows.
This RMD provision is part of the good news in the SECURE Act. It will allow retirees more time to reach their retirement income goals. For many, it will enable better lifetime tax planning as well.
End of the “Stretch” IRA
Prior to the SECURE Act, the distributions on an inherited IRA could be “stretched” over the expected lifetime of the inheritor. That was a staple tool of estate and tax planning.
No more. With a few exceptions, such as for the spouse, the “stretch” is now effectively crunched into ten years. Accounts inherited as of 12/31/2019 are now expected to be distributed over ten years, without a specific annual requirement.
The new law allows a penalty-free distribution of up to $5,000 from an IRA or employer plan for a “Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution.” For a qualified distribution, the owner of the account must take the distribution for a one-year period starting on (1) the date of birth of the child or (2) the date when the adoption becomes final (individual must be under age 18). The law permits the IRA owner who took the distribution to pay it back to the plan or IRA at a later date. However, these distributions remain subject to income taxes.
Generally speaking, we at Insight Financial Strategists think that people in this situation should avoid availing themselves of this new wrinkle in the law. In our experience, a distribution from retirement accounts before retirement can have profound impacts on retirement income security.
It may sound off-topic, but it is not. The SECURE Act also addresses 529 plans. For students and their parents, the SECURE ACT allows tax-free 529 plans to pay for apprenticeship programs if they are registered and certified by the Department of Labor.
This provision will be helpful for those people who have children headed to vocational track programs.
Given how students and parents scramble to meet the challenge of the cost of higher education, I do not forecast that most 529 plans have much left over to pay off loans!
Business Retirement Plans
(Part-Time) Employee Eligibility for 401(k) Plans – In most 401(k) plans, participation by part-time employees is limited. The SECURE Act enables long-time part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans if they have worked for at least 500 hours in each of three consecutive 12-month periods. Long-term part-time employees who become eligible under this provision may still be excluded from eligibility for contributions by employers.
Delayed Adoption of Employer Funded Qualified Retirement Plan– Beginning in 2020, a new plan would be treated as effective for the prior tax year if it is established later than the due date of the previous year’s tax return. Notably, this provision would only apply to plans that are entirely employer-funded (i.e., profit-sharing, pension, and stock bonus plans).
403(b) Custodial Accounts under Terminated Plans are allowed to be Distributed in Kind – Subject to US Treasury Department guidance, the SECURE Act allows an individual 403(b) custodial account in a terminating plan to be distributed “in-kind” to the participant. The account distributed in this way would retain its tax-deferred status as a 403(b).
Establish Open Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs) – Employers may now join together to create an “open” MEPs, referred to in the legislation as “Pooled Plans.” This will allow small employers to join together and share the costs of retirement planning for their employees, such as through a local Chamber of Commerce or other organization, to start a retirement plan for their employees.
Increased Tax Credits – The tax credit for small employers who start a new retirement planwill increase from $500 to $5,000. In addition, small employers that add automatic enrollment to their plans also may qualify for an additional $500 annual tax credit for up to three years.
There are many more provisions in the SECURE Act. While some of them are useful for taxpayers, it is worth noting the observation by Ed Slott, a tax expert and sometimes wag: “whatever Congress names a tax law, it does the opposite .” This is worth keeping in mind as you mull the implications of this law. With the SECURE Act now the law, it may be time to check in with your fiduciary financial planner and revise your retirement income and estate plans.
A key item of the TCJA is that it increased the standard deduction, reducing the impact of the elimination of State and Local Taxes (SALT) under $10,000 and the elimination of personal deductions. As a result, about 84% of taxpayers claim the standard deduction and do not itemize. By comparison, about 56% of taxpayers itemized before the enactment of the TCJA. The vast majority of taxpayers are no longer subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), since two of its key drivers, the deductibility of state and local taxes and personal deductions, are no longer a practical issue for most people. And in 2018, only 1,700 estates were subject to the federal estate and gift tax. So for most people, the TCJA has made taxes simpler to deal with. What’s there not to like about a simpler tax return ?
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Impact of the TCJA on the Federal Deficit
As predicted, the TCJA worsened the federal deficit bringing it to nearly a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2019. That was in spite of an increase in tax revenue due to the continuing improvement in the economic climate. Of course, the federal deficit continues to be driven by federal spending on the sacred cows of modern US politics: Defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Interest on the federal debt is also a major budget item that needs to be paid. While our continuing regime of low interest rates is helping control the interest on the debt, it is clear that the future may change that.
What will happen to tax rates?
Tax rates are lower now than they have been since the 1970s and 80s. Hence, industry insiders tend to think that tax rates have nowhere to go but up. That is also what’s is predicted by the TCJA, which is largely designed to sunset in 2025. Should the American people turn on Republicans at the 2020 election, it’s possible that the TCJA will see a premature end. However, it seems that the possibility that the American people might elect a progressive in 2020 is largely discounted when it comes to tax rate forecasting: most people assume that tax rates will increase.
Political forecasting aside, there are still things that we can do to lower our taxes . It should be noted that many of the techniques in this article are not limited to the year-end. Furthermore, we all have different situations that may or may not be appropriate for these techniques.
Tax Loss Harvesting
Even though we have had a pretty good year overall, many of us may still have positions in which we have paper losses. Tax-loss harvesting consists of selling these positions to realize the losses. This becomes valuable when you sell the equivalent amount of shares in which you have gains. So if you sell some shares with $10,000 in losses, and some with $10,000 in gains, you have effectively canceled out the taxes on the gains.
You then have to reinvest the shares sold into another investment. Be careful not to buy back the exact same shares that you sold. That would disallow the tax loss harvesting!
At the same time, it makes sense to review your portfolio and see if there are other changes that you would like to make. We are not fans of frequent changes for its own sake. However, periodically our needs change, the markets change, and we need to adapt.
Income Tax Planning
While tax loss harvesting is mostly about managing Capital Gains taxes, it is also important to keep an eye on income tax planning . This is a good time of year to estimate your income and your taxes for the year. When comparing your estimated Adjusted Gross Income with the tax tables, you will see if you might be creeping up into the next tax bracket. For instance, if you are single and your estimated AGI is $169,501 (and you have no other complexity), you are right at the 32% tax bracket (after you remove the $12,000 standard deduction). In this example, that means that for every dollar above that amount you would owe 32 cents in federal income tax, and a little bit more for state income tax, if that applies to you.
If your income is from a business, you may possibly defer some of that income to next year. If your income comes from wages, another way to manage this is to plan an additional contribution to a retirement account. In the best of cases your $1,000 contribution would reduce your taxes by $320, and a little bit more for state taxes.
In some cases, you might have a significant dip in income. Perhaps if you have a business, you reported some large purchases, or you booked a loss or just had a bad year for income. It may make sense at this point to take advantage of your temporarily low tax rate to do a Roth conversion. Check with your wealth manager or tax preparer.
One way around that situation is to bundle or lump charitable gifts. Instead of giving every year, you can give 2, 3 or more years worth of donations at one time. That would allow your charity to receive the contribution, and, potentially, for you to take a tax deduction.
Pushing the bundling concept further, you could give even more to a Donor Advised Fund (DAF). With that option, you could take a tax deduction, and give every year from the DAF. That allows you to control your donations, reduce your income in the year that you donate, and potentially reduce income taxes and Medicare premiums. Consult your wealth strategist to ensure that taxes, income, and donations are optimized.
First, it is important to review Required Minimum Distribution (RMDs). Anyone who is 70 ½ years of age or older is subject to RMDs. Please make sure to connect with your financial advisor to make sure that the RMD is properly withdrawn before the year-end.
The RMD is a perennial subject of irritation for people . Obviously, if your retirement income plan includes the use of RMDs, it’s not so much of an issue. However, if it is not required, it can be irritating. That is because RMD distributions are subject to income taxes that may even push you into the next tax bracket or increase your Medicare premium. There are, however, some ways that you can deal with that.
For instance, if you take a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD) from your IRA and have the distribution given directly to a charity, the distribution will not be income to you. Hence you won’t pay income taxes on that distribution, and it will not be counted toward the income used to calculate your Medicare premium. However, it will fulfill your RMD, thus taking care of that pesky issue.
Generally, we advocate planning for lifetime taxes rather than for any one given year. Lifetime financial planning has the potential to result in even more benefits. It should be noted that many of the possibilities outlined in this article can be used throughout the year, not just at year-end. We encourage you to have that conversation with your wealth management team to plan for the long term!
Long Term Care (LTC) can be a stressful subject to discuss, especially when costs are addressed. The reality is that Long Term Care is expensive. According to Genworth, a prominent provider of Long Term Care insurance, the median national cost of a stay at an assisted living facility is $48,000 annually in 2018. The total cost, over someone’s lifetime, ends up being much larger depending on where and how long a person will be needing it.
For example, the median cost of assisted living in New Jersey in 2018 was $72,780, according to Genworth. If someone were to stay at an assisted living facility for three years, the cost would be in excess of $200,000. Nursing home care could be even more expensive.
Even insurance companies have difficulty ascertaining the cost. Large insurance providers such as John Hancock have left the field and no longer offer LTC policies to the general public. Others, including Genworth and Mass Mutual, have been struggling with State Insurance Commissions to increase premiums. Recently, Genworth was approved to increase premiums by 58% in 22 States.
According to the Federal Government, Long Term Care is the range of services and support you will need to meet health and personal care needs over a long period of time when you are unable to provide it for yourself. LTC is not medical care, but rather assistance with the basic personal tasks of everyday life.
We have plenty of statistics on how LTC affects us as a whole, but very few on how it will affect us individually. Are we going to be part of the 70%, or can we avoid it and be part of the 30%. We just don’t have a very good way to predict how much long term care we will need, when we will need it, and how much it will cost. This is precisely why long term care planning is necessary as part of normal financial or retirement planning.
Who Pays for Long Term Care?
People often assume that Medicare or Medigap (the supplemental coverage for Medicare), or even regular health insurance will cover the cost of their Long Term Care expense.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect. Medicare is set up to cover only direct medical expenses, such as doctor and hospital visits, tests, and medicine. When it comes to issues of old age care, Medicare is not involved.
In general, most people without a plan who need Long Term Care will pay for it out of their own assets. Once there is no money left, Medicaid will usually take over. This approach works best for people who have enough assets to cover the other foreseeable circumstances in their future.
However, planning for Medicaid to take over is a backup plan at best. However, it is good to know that it is there, should we need it.
How do I protect my assets from nursing homes?
A close alternative to spending your own money and then letting Medicaid take over is actually to plan for Medicaid to take over. That involves creating a trust in which to put your assets so they can be protected in the event that long term care is needed. When that happens, the assets remain safely in the trust, and Medicaid pays for your long term care. You should keep in mind that Medicaid is taxpayer-funded, and as with other government programs, it is periodically under stress for funding. In other words, it is not easy to predict with certainty that such a plan would work, especially if it is much in the future.
Long Term Care Insurance
For others, purchasing a long term care insurance policy may be a better alternative. In exchange for the premiums, the insurance company commits to pay the amount contracted for. Effectively, the policy covers a significant percentage of the uncertainty generated by long term care. That amount can vary to take into account your own circumstances.
From a tax viewpoint, it is worth noting that some of the premiums for most standard LTC policies available today may be deductible from taxable income within the limits specified by the IRS, especially for business owners. Also, up to certain limits, benefits are not taxed as income. Take this favorable tax treatment as a sign that Uncle Sam would like to encourage you to be covered (and not use Medicaid)!
The challenge with LTC insurance is that insurance companies have miscalculated the premiums required to cover their costs. As a result, premium increases, including the one mentioned earlier from Genworth, have shocked pre-retirees and retirees alike, resulting in a considerable debate about whether to drop LTC insurance policies altogether.
The financial impact of premium increases is real. It is a painful hit on a sore subject. And as with any price increase like that, the impulse is just to cancel.
However, canceling would be a mistake for many people. The cost of LTC must be covered somehow, and if not through insurance, it is usually through your own assets. However, it does provide an opportunity to reconsider the issue with your financial planner. Most people affected by price increases bought their policy many years ago. It would be beneficial to re-analyze the LTC need and the benefits of the policy. You may find out that you are over-insured, or underinsured. And then you can figure out a way forward on how to right-size your coverage.
Long Term Care insurance helps pay for long term care expenses, helps preserve your assets and your legacy. Also, a portion of the premium is potentially tax-deductible. So why are so many people resistant to traditional Long Term Care insurance?
First, as we mentioned before, it is expensive. Although, it is worth noting that the cumulative cost of LTC insurance premiums usually is less than the cost of Long Term Care itself! Second, the possibility that the insurance policy may not be used, as in the case of death happening suddenly, is enough to stop many people from acquiring Long Term Care insurance. In this paradigm, the thought of paying premiums for years, and not collecting a benefit would make the insurance a waste.
Don’t Waste the Premiums
To counter this objection, the insurance industry has created products that allow you to “not waste the premiums.” These products allow you to purchase an annuity or a life insurance policy with a special “rider” that allows their conversion to an LTC policy should the need arise.
These products allow you to get Long Term Care coverage if needed, and allow repurposing the funds in case the Long Term Care benefit is not used. The details of these products are beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say, that these alternatives can provide a lot of flexibility, at a cost, in a financial plan. For people who have significant assets that are not needed for their retirement plan, these alternatives may be worth considering.
The answer is different for everyone. Being a financial planner and number geek, I believe that the answer for many resides in comparing the costs and the benefits. For most people that will result in keeping your insurance. If you are not sure, schedule a call, and we can review.
LTC can be a significant expense. As such, it needs to be factored into your overall retirement plan. The four approaches discussed (pay out of assets, Medicaid planning, traditional long term care insurance, and “not waste the premium” alternatives) all offer different benefits and should be matched to the right circumstance and individual preference.
For those filing as single with income below $25,000, or married filing jointly with income below $32,000, social security income is income tax-free. However, single filer retirees with income up to $34,000 or $44,000 for married filing jointly will find that 50% of their social security becomes taxable. When income increases over $34,000, or $44,000 for married filing jointly then 85% becomes taxable.
Retirement accounts such as 401(k), 403(b), and IRAs are an important source of income for retirees. Income from these accounts is taxed as ordinary income, as if it was being earned in a job, with tax rates ranging from 10% to 37% at the federal level. That is because the initial contribution to those accounts helped to reduce taxable income at the time. That means that the money in these retirement accounts was never taxed.
To complicate the matter, distributions from some accounts may be exempt from State taxes. For instance, 403(b) accounts earned in New Jersey are exempt from New Jersey State income taxes at distribution. Similarly, IRA distributions from accounts that were established by Massachusetts taxpayers are exempt from State income taxes. These peculiarities vary from State to State. It’s important to verify how they may apply in your State rather than making an assumption.
Many retirees still receive pension income. Some of the more common ones include state, federal and military pensions. Although private pensions have been in decline for several decades now, there continue to be many people who receive payments from these pensions.
Income from Roth accounts is not taxed in retirement. That is because the initial contribution came from after-tax money. In other words, the income used to make the contribution was taxed on the full amount before the contribution was made. I like to say that “Roth accounts are not tax-free, they are just taxed differently“.
A key benefit of Roth accounts is that their distributions do not count toward high-income surcharges for Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.
Income received from municipal bonds is federal tax-free. Like a Roth contribution, an investment in municipal bonds is made with after-tax money. If you own municipal bonds from the state of your residence, the interest is also state tax-free. However, if you own municipal bonds from states other than your residence, their interest is usually taxable at the state level.
People also wonder what happens when they sell their municipal bonds. When that happens, the price of the bond can be higher or lower than the face value, known as a premium or a discount. When the price is at a premium, the difference between the premium and the face value can be taxed. That can often be an impediment to a sale as people don’t want to be taxed.
When held for one year or longer, investments outside of retirement accounts are subject to long term capital gains taxes. They can range from 0% to 23.8%, including potential Medicare surcharges. In 2019, for a married couple filing jointly with taxable income up to $78,750, long term capital gains are taxed at 0% federally ($39,375 for people filing as single).
Therefore investments can potentially be taxed less than other sources of income such as retirement accounts. Balancing distributions from investments in conjunction with Traditional retirement and Roth accounts can be a valuable tax optimization tool.
Any income from annuities held inside qualified retirement accounts such as an IRA will be taxable as ordinary income in its entirety.
Income from annuities that are not held in qualified retirement accounts is partially taxable as ordinary income. The amount of the distribution that represents your original investment is considered tax-free.
Therefore, the taxation of annuity income falls somewhat below that the taxation of income from retirement accounts.
Loans from the cash value of an insurance policy are considered tax free. That is because, as any loans, they are not considered income. That is a critical point made at the time that an insurance sale occurs. It should be noted, however, that life insurance is an instance when the tax issues are so prevalent in the discussion that they obscure the other costs of cash value life insurance. The loan from the policy is tax-free, but that in an of itself does not necessarily make life insurance cost-effective or appropriate for your needs.
Income earned in retirement is taxed as any other earned income before retirement. Some retirees continue to earn work income, from part-time jobs or from consulting gigs for example. That income is taxed as earned income as if they were not retired, including Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, there is no tax break for working in retirement!
The reality for most of us is that we will owe taxes in retirement. The multiplication of tax situations can make planning difficult for a retiree.
The challenge is to plan our income situation strategically, manipulate it if you will, in order to minimize lifetime taxes.
Fortunately, wealth planning done properly is a very feasible endeavor that may help you keep more of what you earned in your pockets!
1) Harvest your Tax Losses in Your Taxable Accounts
As of[ October 26, the Dow Jones is up 1.65%, and the S&P500 is up just 0.98% ]for the year. Unfortunately, many stocks and mutual funds are down for the year. Therefore you are likely to have a number of items in your portfolio that show up in red when you check the “unrealized gains and losses” column on your brokerage statement.
However, you can also offset your losses against gains. For example, if you were to sell some losers and hypothetically accumulate $10,000 in losses, you could then also sell some winners. If the gains in your winners add to $10,000, you have offset your gains with losses, and you will not owe capital gain taxes on that joint trade!
This could be a great tool to help you rebalance your portfolio with a low tax impact. Beware though that you have to wait 30 days before buying back the positions that you have sold to stay clear of the wash sale rule.
2) Reassess your Investment Planning
Tax loss harvesting is a great tactic to use for short-term advantage. As an important side benefit, it allows you to focus on more fundamental issues. Why did you buy these securities that you just sold? Presumably, they played an important role in your investing strategy. And now that you have accumulated cash, it’s important to re-invest mindfully.
You may be tempted to stay on the sideline for a while and see how the market shakes out. Although we may have been spoiled into complacency after the Great Recession, the last month has reminded us that volatility happens.
Take the opportunity to review your goals, ensure that your portfolio risk matches your goals and that your asset allocation matches your risk target..
3) Check on your Retirement Planning
It is not too late to top out your retirement account! In 2018, you may contribute a maximum of $18,500 from your salary, including employer match to a 401(k), TSP, 403(b), or 457 retirement plan, subject to the terms of your plan. Those who are age 50 or over may contribute an additional $6,000 for the year.
If you have contributed less than the limit to your plan, there may still be time! You have until December 31 to maximize contributions for 2018, reduce your 2018 taxable income (if you contribute to a Traditional plan), and give a boost to your retirement planning.
Alternatively to deferring a portion of your salary to your employer’s Traditional plan on a pre-tax basis, you may be able to contribute to a Roth account if that is a plan option for your employer. As with a Roth IRA, contributions to the Roth 401(k) are made after tax, while distributions in retirement are tax-free.
Many employers have added the Roth feature to their employee retirement plans. If yours has not, have a chat with your HR department!
Although the media has popularized the Roth account as tax-free, bear in mind that it is not. Roth accounts are merely taxed differently . Check in with your Certified Financial Planner practitioner to determine whether electing to defer a portion of your salary to on a pre-tax basis or to a Roth account on a post-tax basis would suit your situation better.
It is health insurance re-enrollment season! The annual ritual of picking a health insurance plan is on to us. This could be one of your more significant financial decisions for the short term. Not only is health insurance expensive, it is only getting more so.
First, you need to decide whether to subscribe to a traditional plan that has a “low” deductible or to a high deductible option. The tradeoff is that the high deductible option has a less expensive premium. However, should you have a lot of health issues you might end up spending more. High deductible plans are paired with Health Savings Accounts (HSA).
The HSA is a unique instrument. It allows you to save money pre-tax and to pay for qualified healthcare expenses tax-free. Unlike Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), balances in HSAs may be carried over to future years and invested to allow for potential earnings growth. This last feature is really exciting to wealth managers: in the right situation clients could end up saving a lot of money.
If you pick a high deductible plan, make sure to fund your HSA to the maximum. Employers will often contribute also to encourage you to choose that option. If you select a low deductible plan, make sure to put the appropriate amount in your Flexible Spending Account. FSAs are used to pay for medical expenses on a pretax basis. Unlike with an HSA, you cannot rollover unspent amounts to future years.
6) If you are past 70, plan your RMDs
If you are past 70, make sure that you take your Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year. The 50% penalty for not taking the RMD is steep. You must withdraw your first minimum distribution by April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70 ½, and then by December 31 for each year after.
Perhaps you don’t need the RMD? You may want to redirect the money to another cause. For instance, you may want to fund a grandchild’s 529 educational account. 529 accounts are tax-advantaged accounts for education. Although contributions are post-tax, growth and distributions are tax-free if they are used for educational purposes.
Or, you may want to plan for a Qualified Charitable Distribution from the IRA and take a tax deduction. The distribution must be directly from the IRA to the charity. It is excluded from taxable income and can count towards your RMD under certain conditions.
7) Plan your charitable donations
Speaking of charitable donations, they can also be used to reduce taxable income and provide financial planning benefits. However, as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), it may be more complicated than in previous years. One significant difference of the TCJA is that standard deductions went up to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married filing jointly. Practically what that means is that you need to accumulate $12,000 or $24,000 of deductible items before you can feel the tax savings benefit.
In other words, if a married couple filing jointly has $8,000 in real estate taxes and $5,000 of state income taxes for a total of $13,000 of deductions, they are better off taking the standard $24,000 deduction. They would have to donate $7,000 before they could start to feel the tax benefit of their donation. One way to deal with that is to bundle your gifts in a given year instead of spreading them over many years.
For instance, if you plan to give in 2018 and also in 2019, consider bundling your donations and giving just in 2019. In this way, you are more likely to be able to exceed the standard deduction limit.
If your thinking wheels are running after reading this article, you may want to check in with your wealth manager or financial planner: there may be other things that you could or should do before the end of the year!
Note: The information herein is general and educational in nature and should not be construed as legal, tax, or investment advice. We make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented. To determine investments that may be appropriate for you, consult with your financial planner before investing. Tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to change, which can materially impact investment results. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions.We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at the websites linked in this newsletter. When you access one of these websites, you assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the websites to which you are linking. We are not liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, websites, information, and programs made available through this website.
Financial Planner or Estate Planner: Which Do You Need?
Financial Planners and Estate Planners are two different professions that are often confused. There is some overlap between professionals in these fields, but their roles are rather distinct. When you are striving to make a long-term plan for a strong financial future, both financial planners and estate planners play a crucial role.
In fact, when you consider some of the most recent personal finance statistics, it becomes very clear that many Americans could really benefit from retaining the services of both a financial planner AND an estate planner. For instance, 33% of Americans have no money saved for retirement, 60% lack any form of an estate plan, and only 46% have money saved for emergencies. Better planning starts with understanding what both types of planners do.
What is a Financial Planner?
A financial planner is a professional who offers a wide range of services that can assist both individuals and businesses to accomplish their long-term financial goals and accumulate wealth. They fall into two categories:
Registered Investment Advisor
Certified Financial Planner
Certified Financial Planners (CFP) are required to comply with the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, which means they have a basic level of expertise backed by a larger organization. Ethically they have to work in your best interest.
Services provided by both financial advisors and CFPs include:
While you might believe only wealthy individuals need to work with an estate planner, you should consider the fact that everything you have accumulated in your life comprises your estate. Accumulated assets such as vehicles, furniture, bank accounts, life insurance, your home, and other personal possessions are all included in your estate.
When you work with both a financial planner and an estate planner, they will keep you accountable by periodically reviewing your documentation and beneficiaries and making sure everything is updated and reviewed as necessary. By taking the time to work with both these professionals, no important decisions will be overlooked, and you will take control of your financial future.
Note: This article was authored by Kristin Dzialo, a partner at Eckert Byrne LLC, a Cambridge, MA law firm that provides tailored estate planning. Eckert Byrne LLC and Insight Financial Strategists LLC are separate and unaffiliated companies. This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only. While Insight Financial Strategists LLC believes the sources to be reliable, it makes no representations or warranties as to this or other third party content it makes available on its website and/or newsletter, nor does it explicitly or implicitly endorse or approve the information provided.
These individuals no longer have the luxury of a steady paycheck, and unless they are one of the lucky ones with a defined benefit plan and/or a large portfolio of liquid investments, they will have to dip into their 401k’s and savings to fund their lifestyle.
Somebody in the de-accumulation phase will naturally worry about how long their money will last and whether they can maintain their lifestyles.
Let’s look at the data. According to the Social Security Actuarial Life Table (2014) estimates, life expectancy for a 65 male is 17.81 years and for a female 20.36 years. Somebody in above average health may live even longer – these are just median numbers. If you want to conduct your own calculations, you can refer to How Long Will You Live?
David Blanchett of Morningstar uses the 2012 Society of Actuaries annuity table to estimate the likelihood of living to a certain age using the methodology outlined in his 2013 FPA journal article. This cohort of individuals comes from a higher than average socio-economic group and tends to live longer than average.
Table 1 highlights the calculations from the perspective of a 65-year-old. There is a 50% chance that a male lives to age 89 with a female living to age 91.
Some people retire with very healthy nest eggs that, barring a cataclysmic event, will provide plenty of cash to fund their lifestyles. They need not worry much as long as assets vastly outstrip expenses. They have a high margin of safety.
For most retirees, however, the margin of safety provided by their financial assets in relation to their expenses is slimmer. They do need to worry about how much they are spending, how their investments are performing and how long they may need their portfolio assets to last. They may have other sources of income such as Social Security but still need to make their investment portfolios work hard to bridge the gap between lifestyle expenses and sources of income.
Most people in retirement face a balancing act
They can control their expenses to some extent (putting off non-essential expenses). They can plan and make sure that their investment portfolios are structured in accordance with their appetite and need for risk-taking (maybe requiring the help of a financial professional). But what they can’t control are capital market returns and how long they need to tap into their retirement accounts (how long they will live).
One way to identify the various trade-offs required to ensure the sustainability of an investment portfolio is to come up with a CHRIS, a Comprehensive Holistic Retirement Investment Strategy with the help of a financial professional. A good plan should clearly outline what actions you need to take and what type of minimum portfolio return you will need to achieve to ensure that the probability of running out of money before you or your partner/spouse die is within your comfort zone.
Another alternative is to forego a formal financial plan and utilize some sort of rule of thumb such as William Bengen’s 4% rule. According to this highly popular rule published in 1994, you can safely withdraw 4% of your capital every year in retirement. The research contains a number of key assumptions (such as a 50/50 stock/bond allocation) often ignored in the popular press, but the Bengen rule is not only well known but popular among many retirees.
Milevsky and Robinson provide a simple approach in their highly touted article “A Sustainable Spending Rate without Simulation” to calculating what they call the “probability of ruin.”
Milevsky and Robinson identify three important factors: your rate of consumption, the risk/reward structure of your portfolio, and how long you live. Visually, these concepts can be illustrated in a Retirement Finances Triangle as depicted in Figure 1.
Without going into the mathematics of the Milevsky and Robinson approach for calculating a “probability of ruin” lets us think a bit more deeply about what makes retirement planning complicated in the first place.
The first aspect that makes retirement planning difficult is the uncertainty surrounding how long you and your spouse/partner are going to live. People are living longer, on average, than in previous generations. But an average does not necessarily help you. Your physical and mental health could be dramatically different from the “average” individual.
The other variable that is highly uncertain and makes retirement planning more difficult relates to the variability of investment outcomes on your retirement portfolio. While history is a guide as to what to reasonably expect in terms of key asset class returns and risks over the long-term, in any given year returns could fall within a wide range.
As most people already know, stock returns exhibit more variability in outcomes than bonds. The “probability of ruin” calculation using the Milevsky and Robinson formula incorporates the ability of individuals to evaluate the implications of various forms of asset allocation with varying levels of expected risk and return.
As you have probably figured out by now, calculating the “probability of ruin” is extremely important in planning your retirement.
To make the situation more realistic let’s look through the eyes of George and Mandy, both aged 65 and about to retire from their corporate jobs. They have saved diligently over the years and now have a portfolio worth $1,000,000 that they will tap to fund their lifestyle in retirement.
George and Mandy estimate that they will need $90,000 a year to maintain their lifestyle. Their Certified Financial Planner has also told them that their Social Security income will be $50,000 a year. They face an annual gap of $40,000. They expect to tap into their retirement portfolio to fund this gap.
They are in reasonably good health and based on discussions with their financial planner they assume that they will live to age 90. To be safe, they assume a retirement horizon of 30 years.
Their starting portfolio value is $1,000,000 and they wish to withdraw $40,000 a year to fund their living expenses.
Capital Market Assumptions:
We assume that inflation will run 3% per year, on average. Currently, inflation is running a bit lower than 3% in the US but the historical average is only slightly north of 3%.
What sort of investment risk and return assumptions should people use to calculate the probability of running out of money under this scenario?
For illustrative purposes only, Insight Financial Strategists has aggregated all the asset class risk and return numbers into six multi-asset class strategy portfolios according to investment risk – Conservative, Moderate Conservative, Moderate, Moderate Aggressive, Aggressiveand the industry convention of a 60/40balanced strategy.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
Let’s start out gently – the Case of No Uncertainty:
It always helps to start off with a hypothetical scenario where all decision elements are known with certainty up front. We assume that George and Mandy own a 60/40 portfolio returning 4.9% per year and an annual inflation rate of 3%.
If they were to withdraw the equivalent of $40,000 a year in inflation-adjusted terms what would the required distribution look like over their retirement years?
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
The red line in Figure 1 depicts what would happen to their expenses in retirement if inflation were to rise every year by 3%.
What started off as a withdrawal of $40,000 turns into a much larger number over time. For example, after ten years they would need to withdraw $52,000 each year to fund their lifestyle (assuming that their Social Security checks are adjusted annually for inflation as is the current practice).
After 20 years they would need to withdraw $70,000 from their portfolio each year and after 30 years (their last year in their calculations) the number would increase to $94,000 annually. Inflation can sure take a bite!
In terms of George and Mandy’s portfolio, the assumption is that it will yield 4.9% per year or in inflation-adjusted terms, 1.9% per year. After withdrawals are taken out of the portfolio by George and Mandy to fund their lifestyle net of portfolio returns (the assumed 4.9% nominal return per year) the assumed value of the portfolio is depicted in Figure 2.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
At the end of the 30th year, the portfolio is expected to be worth $277K. As long as George and Mandy only live 30 years in retirement and the assumed inflation and portfolio returns prove spot on (accurate) then things should be ok. They will glide through retirement and even have some assets left over.
The problem occurs if either George and/or Mandy live past age 95. According to the actuarial data in Table 1, there is a 25% chance that George will live to age 99 and Mandy will live to age 101.
Now what? Their current $1,000,000 portfolio is now insufficient to fund their retirement expenses past the age of 97. They will run out of money and not be able to rely on portfolio income anymore.
What could they do to prevent such an unpleasant outcome?
For starters, they could spend less. For example, they could cut back their annual spending to $30,000.
They could also shoot for higher portfolio returns by taking on a bit more investment risk. George and Mandy understand that higher portfolio returns are not generated out of thin air. Higher prospective returns are tied to higher risks.
But does the real world work like this?
Is it just a matter of pulling some levers here and there and voila you have wished for the perfect outcome?
Unfortunately, referring to the Retirement Finances Triangle depicted in Figure 1 although there are some things that George and Mandy can control such as their expenses but when it comes to how long they will live and how their portfolio will actually perform over their retirement years there are lots of unknowns.
Let’s deal with the real world – Introducing Uncertainty:
What if George and/or Mandy live longer than the assumed 30-year lifespan? This is what professionals refer to as longevity risk. Living a high quality, long life is a very noble and common goal. Outliving your assets is a real fear.
What if portfolio returns do not measure up to our assumed returns? This is referred to as investment risk. What happens if investment returns are significantly below expectations and portfolio income proves insufficient to maintain your desired lifestyle? Most retirees seek some margin of safety in their investments for this exact reason.
The Milevsky and Robinson formula is designed to take these uncertainties into account by modeling the likely distribution of portfolio returns and longevity. The end output is a probability of running out of money at some point in time over the retirement horizon. They refer to this number as the “probability of ruin”.
Let’s start by looking at the implications of the various portfolios strategies presented in Table 1. The Conservative strategy is the least risky approach but also has the lowest prospective returns. This strategy is exclusively composed of bonds.
The Aggressive strategy is exclusively composed of equities and is expected to have the highest returns as well as the highest risk of all of our strategies.
The 60/40 strategy falls along the middle in terms of prospective portfolio returns and risk.
What do the different risk and return profiles of the strategies imply in terms of the probability of ruin of George and Mandy’s portfolio?
Figure 3 depicts graphically the output from the Milevsky and Robinson formula.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
What immediately jumps out from the bar charts is that the probability of ruin for the various portfolios is quite high. No longer assuming that everything is perfect creates, not surprisingly, more difficult likely outcomes.
For example, if George and Mandy were to employ the Conservative strategy yielding an assumed 2.3% annual return there is an 80% probability of them running out of money at some point in retirement. Being conservative has its drawbacks!
What if they had the internal fortitude to employ the all-equity Aggressive strategy yielding a prospective return of 6.8% with a volatility of 17%? Their probability of ruin would drop to 37%.
Even if they employed the conventional 60/40 strategy, their probability of ruin would still exceed 45%.
What if the probability of running out of money is too high?
Well, for starters they could reduce their rate of consumption, i.e. spend less. Maybe not what they wanted to hear but possible.
Let’s assume that instead of taking out $40,000 a year from their investment accounts they withdraw only $30,000? Let’s also assume that they invest in the traditional 60/40 portfolio. The only thing that has changed from the previous scenario is that now George and Mandy are spending only 3% of their initial portfolio to fund their lifestyle.
By spending less and thus depleting their investment assets at a slower rate, they lower their probability of running out of money at some point over their remaining lives to 30%. George and Mandy start thinking that maybe searching for a more inexpensive vacation option makes sense and allow them to worry less about outliving their assets.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
What else can they do to shift the odds in their favor?
Besides spending less, another option is to work a bit longer and postpone their retirement date. Let’s say they both work five years longer than originally planned. What would happen assuming that they still intend to withdraw $40,000 in portfolio income and they invest in the 60/40 strategy?
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
By delaying retirement for five years George and Mandy lower the probability of running out of money to below 38%. Not bad but maybe not quite to their satisfaction.
Could George and Mandy restructure their investment portfolio to improve their odds?
Yes, that is certainly a feasible approach as we already outlined in Figure 3. Higher return strategies carry higher risk but when held over the long-term tend to lower the probability of running out of money.
But not everybody is equally comfortable taking investment risk even if it is likely to result in higher ending portfolio values over the long-term.
Is there another approach to design a more suitable retirement portfolio?
While risk and return are inextricably intertwined, recent financial research has identified the “low volatility” anomaly where lower volatility stocks outperform their higher volatility cohorts on a risk-adjusted basis. See this note for an introduction to the low volatility anomaly.
Let’s say that instead of assuming a 10.4% volatility for the 60/40 portfolio we are able to utilize a mixture of similar investment vehicles designed to exhibit lower levels of volatility but equivalent returns. Say the volatility of this strategy is now 8.4% and uses a range of lower volatility fixed income and equity approaches plus possibly an allocation to a guaranteed annuity.
Figure 6 illustrates the implications of using the lower volatility investment strategy. The probability of ruin goes down marginally to below 42%. Good but not great in the eyes of George and Mandy.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
What else can George and Mandy do?
After all, they have evaluated the impact of lowering their expenses, deferring their retirement date and structuring a more suitable investment portfolio and they still are uncomfortable with a probability of ruin in the 30% range.
The short answer as in many areas of life is to do a bunch of small things. They could elect to just lower their spending from 4% to 3% and the probability of running out of money would drop to about 30%.
But George and Mandy realize that they could do even better by doing all three things:
Working a bit longer
Structuring a more suitable investment portfolio
Figure 7 highlights the various alternative courses of action that they could take to increase the odds of not running out of money in retirement.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
There are no guarantees in life, but spending less, delaying retirement and designing a more suitable portfolio lowers the probability of running out of money to about 20%.
While we all strive for control, George and Mandy are comfortable with this approach and the sacrifices required. To them leading a fulfilling life in retirement is more than just about money and sacrificing a bit in order to gain peace of mind is a worthwhile trade-off.
What does calculating the probability of running out of money in retirement teach us?
Is the trade-off that George and Mandy are making appropriate for you? Maybe, but maybe not. At the very least, understanding your own circumstances and your own probability of running out of money may lead to vastly different choices.
Your retirement could extend for 30+ years. Having enough resources to fund your retirement is important to maintain your lifestyle and achieve peace of mind.
While much of life is beyond our control, everybody can still exert some influence over their retirement planning. In this article we highlighted three general strategies:
Adjusting your spending
Delaying when you tap your retirement resources
Designing an investment portfolio that suitably balances risk and reward
As people enter retirement, they can’t eliminate either longevity or investment risk. What they can do is manage the risks and remain open to adapting their plan should things change.
At Insight Financial Strategists we don’t believe in shortcuts. A CHRIS, a Comprehensive Holistic Retirement Income Strategy, gives you the best chance of full understanding your circumstances and what needs to happen to fund your lifestyle in retirement.
Barring a full financial plan, at a minimum people should evaluate the likelihood of running out of money. Applying the Milevsky and Robinson formula represents a starting point for an in-depth conversation about your needs, goals and especially your attitude toward risk and capacity to absorb losses.
Interested in having the professionals at Insight Financial Strategists guide you? Please request a complimentary strategy session here.
Information presented herein is for discussion and illustrative purposes only and is not a recommendation or an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions. References to specific investment themes are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as recommendations or investment advice. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s own goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk. Material presented is believed to be from reliable sources and no representations are made by our firm as to another parties’ informational accuracy or completeness. All information or ideas provided should be discussed in detail with an advisor, accountant or legal counsel prior to implementation.
This piece may contain assumptions that are “forward-looking statements,” which are based on certain assumptions of future events. Actual events are difficult to predict and may differ from those assumed. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will materialize or that actual returns or results will not be materially different from those described here.
Stock and bond markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Investing involves risk, including the risk of loss.
We all think that we are fully rational all the time but in reality the way our brains operate that is not always the case.
One of the key functions of the brain is self-defense. When the brain perceives danger it makes automatic adjustments to protect itself. When it perceives discomfort it seeks to engage in an action that removes the stress.
In his book “Thinking Fast and Slow” Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman explains how we all have a two way system of thinking that we use to make decisions. He labels the two components as System 1 (Thinking Fast) and System 2 (Thinking Slow).
System 1 is automatic, fast responding and emotional. System 2 is slower, reflective and analytical.
Think of your System 1 as your gut reaction and your System 2 as your conscious, logical thought.
While we all like to think that our key life decisions are governed by our logical thought (System 2) research has shown that even major decisions are often driven by our gut feel.
Which System do we use to make a decision? That depends on the problem. If we have seen the problem many times before such as what to do when see a red light we default to our automatic System 1 thinking.
When we face a challenge or issue that we have not seen before or maybe infrequently we tend to use System 2, our more reflective and analytical capabilities.
Kahneman’s research shows that we spend most of our time in System 1. While most people think of themselves as being rational and deliberate in their decision making, the reality is that we often employ “short-cuts” or heuristics to make decisions.
Most of the time, these “short-cuts” work just fine but occasionally for more difficult or complex problems the impressions arrived from System 1 thinking can lead us astray.
Why? Above all else, System 1 thinking seeks to create quick and coherent stories based on first impressions. These impressions are a function of what our brain is sensing at that moment in time.
According to Kahneman, conclusions are easily reached despite often contradictory information as System 1 has little knowledge of logic and statistics. He calls this phenomenon – WYSIATI – for “what you see is all there is”.
The main implication from WYSIATI is that people often over-emphasize evidence that they are familiar with and ignore evidence that may be much more relevant to the problem at hand but that they are not fully aware of.
System 1 conclusions therefore may be biased and lead to decision “short-cuts” or heuristics that seriously impair the quality of a decision.
Loss aversion creates inertia. Inertia often works against investors that overvalue the attractiveness of their current holdings.
There are different degrees of loss aversion. According to Prospect Theory, all investors value gains less than losses but some exhibit an extreme dislike for potential losses that significantly hinders their long-term wealth creation potential.
Nobody likes to lose money, but taking on risk in order to compound your hard earned savings is an integral feature of how capital markets work. You don’t get a higher reward unless you take additional risk.
Most investors know that stocks do better than bonds over the long-term but that the price of these higher returns is more risk. Investors also understand that bonds do better most of the time than simply purchasing a CD at the local bank or investing in a money market mutual fund.
But knowledge stored in your logical and analytical System 2 thinking does not always make it through in the face of stress or uncertainty.
People can become too risk averse for a couple of reasons:
Case A: They let their fears and emotions guide their investment decision making and give disproportionate importance to avoiding any losses
Case B: They fail to calibrate their expectations to the likely frequency of outcomes.
In Case A, investors seek the perceived safety of bonds often not realizing that as interest rates go up bonds can lose money. Or they simply pile into CD’s not realizing that their returns most often fail to keep up with inflation. Stocks are frowned upon because you can lose money.
Investors in Case A let their decisions be driven by emotion and fear and will over-value the importance of safety and under-value the importance of future portfolio growth. Their account balances will not go down much when capital markets experience distress, but neither will they go up much during equity bull markets.
In Case B investors mis-calibrate their expectations for various investment outcomes and the consequences can be as dire as in the first situation. Behavioral finance research has shown that investors frequently over-estimate the likelihood and magnitude of extreme events such as stock market corrections.
What are the implications for investors playing it too safe?
Let’s consider the case of investors currently working and saving a portion of their income to fund a long-term goal such as retirement. These individuals are in the accumulation phase of their financial lives.
Somebody in the accumulation phase will naturally worry more about how fast they can grow their portfolio over time and whether they will reach their “number”. People in the accumulation phase care primarily about their balances going up year after year. They are in “growth” mode.
The Hypothetical Setting:
To better illustrate this situation let’s look through the eyes of a recent college grad called Pablo earning $40,000 a year. Pablo is aware of the need to save part of his salary and invest for the long-term. He just turned 22 and expects to work for 40 years.
Pablo will also be receiving annual 2.5% merit salary increases which will allow him to save a greater amount each year in the future.
Pablo faces two key decisions – what percentage of his salary to save each year and the aggressiveness of his portfolio which in turn will determine its most likely return.
He is conflicted. He has never made this much money before and worries about losing money. He also understands that he alone is responsible for his long-term financial success.
Pablo knows that there is a trade off between risk and return but he wants to make a smart decision. His System 1 thinking is saying play it safe and don’t expose yourself to potential loses.
At the same time his rational and informed System 2 thinking is influenced by a couple of finance and economics classes he recently took while in college.
Pablo can succumb to automatic System 1 thinking and invest in a very conservative portfolio. Or he can rely on his System 2 thinking and invest in a higher risk and commensurately higher return portfolio.
One Alternative – Save 10% of his Income and play it safe investing
For simplicity sake assume that Pablo decides to put 10% of his salary into an investment fund. The fund consists primarily of high grade bonds such as those contained in the AGG exchange traded fund.
From the knowledge gained in his econ and finance classes Pablo estimates that this portfolio should return about 4% per year – a bit below the historical norm for bonds but consistent with market interest rates as of August 2018.
Pablo also understands that such a portfolio will have a bit of variability from year to year. He estimates that the volatility of this portfolio is likely to be about 6% per year. Again, this estimate is in line with current bond market behavior as of August of 2018.
He knows that this is a low risk, low return portfolio but the chances of this portfolio suffering a catastrophic loss are negligible. He is petrified of losing money so this portfolio might fit the bill.
How large could his portfolio be expected grow to over 40 years of saving and investing in this conservative manner? We built a spreadsheet to figure this out. We assumed a 4% portfolio return on principal, 2.5% annual salary increases and a half year of investment returns on annual contributions also at 4%. Remember that this is a hypothetical example with no guarantee of returns.
At the end of 40 years Pablo’s salary is assumed to have grown to $107,403 and his portfolio, invested in this conservative manner, would have a balance of $575,540. The growth of this portfolio (identified as 10_4) is shown in Figure 1. The naming convention for the portfolios corresponds to the savings rate followed by the assumed hypothetical rate of return on the strategy.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists, Hypothetical Example
Pablo knows that his portfolio will not exactly return 4% every year. Some years will be better, other years much worse but over the next 40 years the returns are likely to average close to 4%.
But Pablo does not feel comfortable just dealing in averages. If things go bad, how bad could it be?
Given the volatility of this conservative portfolio there is a 10% chance of losing 3.6% in any given year. These numbers are calculated by Insight Financial Strategists based on an approximation of a log-normal simulation and are available upon request. Not catastrophic but nobody likes losing money.
Figure 2 shows the 90th and 10th probability bands for this conservative portfolio. These bands are estimated based on the expected average return of the portfolio and its volatility.
The actual portfolio return would be expected to lie about 2/3 of the time within these bands. In the short-term, say 1 to 2 years out, the portfolio returns are more unpredictable. Over longer horizons, the average return to this conservative portfolio should fall within much tighter bands given the assumed risk and return numbers in the log-normal simulation.
Based on the calculations, the average returns over ten years should range between 6.3% and 1.4% per annum. Clearly, even this conservative portfolio has some risk especially in the short-term, but over longer holding periods returns should smooth out.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
Another Alternative – Save 20% of his Income and continue investing in a conservative portfolio
Assuming the same 2.5% annual salary increases, the final salary would have been the same but his nest egg would have grown to $1,151,080. Pablo keeps looking at Figure 1 (the 20_4 line representing a 20% savings rate invested at an assumed 4%) and starts thinking that maybe a bit of extra saving would be a very good thing.
He still has a 10% probability of being down 3.6% in any given year, but if his budget allows, he feels that he can forego some frills until later.
Now, Pablo is starting to get excited and wonders what would happen if he invested more aggressively, say in a variety of equity funds?
Yet Another Alternative – Keep saving the same amount but invest more aggressively
The likely returns would go up but so would his risk. He estimates that based on current market conditions and the history of stock market returns (obtained from Professor Damodaran of NYU) that this more aggressive portfolio should have about an 8% annual rate of return with a volatility of around 14% per year. These estimates are both a bit lower than the 1926-2017 average reflecting higher current (as of August 2018) valuations and lower levels of overall market volatility.
He is thinking that maybe by taking more risk in his portfolio during his working years he will be able to build a nest egg that may even allow him for some luxuries down the road.
He also knows that things do not always work out every year as expected. Pablo is pretty confident that 8% is a reasonable expectation averaged over many years, but how bad could it be in any given year?
A log-normal simulation was conducted using the assumed risk and return numbers – same approach as before.
Figure 3 shows the 90th and 10th percentile bands for this portfolio.
Source: Insight Financial Strategists
Given the volatility of this equity-oriented portfolio, there is a 10% chance of losing 9.2% in any given year (based on the simulations). Ouch, the reality of equity investing is starting to sink in for Pablo.
But Pablo is also encouraged to see that his returns in any given year are equally likely to be about 26% or higher. That would be nice!
Especially when it comes to equities there is a wide range of potential returns but over time these year by year fluctuations should average out to a much narrower range of outcomes. While our best estimate is that this portfolio will return on average 8% per year over a ten-year window the range of expected outcomes should be between a high of 12.9% and a low of 1.6%.
Pablo decides to research the history of stock, bond, and cash returns by reading our April Blog on Understanding Asset Class Risk and Return and looking at a chart of long-term returns from Morningstar (Figure 4).
He is surprised to find that over the long-term equities do not seem as risky as he previously thought. He is also quite surprised by the wide gap in wealth created by stocks versus bonds and cash.
The research makes Pablo re-calibrate his expectations and he starts wondering whether the short-term discomfort of owning equities is worth it in the long run.
Pablo’s System 1 thinking is on high alert and his first thought after seeing how much he could lose investing in equities is to run back to the safety of the bond portfolio.
But something tells him to slow down a bit and think harder. This is a big decision for him and his System 2 thinking is kicking in. Before he throws the towel in on the equity-oriented portfolio he glances again at Figure 1 to see what might happen if he invests more aggressively.
What he sees astounds him. It is one thing to see compounding in capital market charts and yet another to see it in action on your behalf. Small differences over the short term amount to very large numbers over long periods of time.
If Pablo were to invest in the more aggressive portfolio there would be more hiccups over the years but his ending account balance should be $1,440,075 if he consistently put aside 10% of his salary every year.
If he saved 20% the ending portfolio balance would double in size.
Decision Time – Picking among the alternatives
Pablo is now faced with a tough decision. Does he play it safe and go with the conservative portfolio? Or, does he go for more risk hoping to end up with a much larger nest egg but knowing that the ride may be rough at times?
Beyond the numbers, he realizes that he needs to look within to make the best possible decision. His System 1 thinking is telling him to flee, but his System 2 thinking is asking him to think more logically about his choices. He also needs to deal with how much he is planning to save from his salary.
Fear versus Greed:
He needs to come to terms with how much risk he is willing to take and whether he can stomach the dips in account balance when investing in riskier assets. As Mike Tyson used to say, “Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face”.
In structuring his investment portfolio Pablo needs to balance fear with greed. Paying attention to risk is absolutely necessary but always in moderation and in the context of historical precedents. If Pablo lets his fears run amuck he may have to accept much lower returns.
With the benefit of hindsight, he may come to regret his caution. On the other hand, the blind pursuit of greed and a disregard for risk may also in hindsight come back to bite him. Pablo needs to find that happy medium but only he can decide what is right for him. Risk questionnaires can help in this regard. Try ours if you like!
Consumption Today versus Tomorrow:
Pablo also needs to come to grips with how much current consumption he is willing to forego in order to save and invest. We live in an impulse oriented society. Spending is easy, saving is hard.
Saving is hard especially when you are starting out. On the other hand, over time the saving habit becomes an ingrained behavior. The saving habit goes a long way toward ensuring financial health and the sooner people start the better.
Will Pablo be able to save 10% of his salary? Or, even better will he be able to squeeze out some additional expenditures and raise his saving to 20%?
If possible Pablo should consider putting as much money in tax-deferred investment vehicles such as a 401(k). He should also have these contributions and any other savings automatically deducted from his paycheck. That way he won’t get used to spending that money. Pablo may come to see these deductions from his paycheck as a “bonus” funding future consumption.
“The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one”
— ELBERT HUBBARD
This has been an eye-opening experience for our hypothetical friend Pablo. He was not expecting such a difference in potential performance. He now realizes the importance of maximizing saving for tomorrow as well as not succumbing to fear when investing for the long-term.
He has learned several invaluable lessons that also apply to individuals in the accumulation phase of their financial lives
Lesson 1: The Importance of Saving
Delaying consumption today allows you fund your lifestyle in the future
Saving even small amounts makes a big difference over the long-term
Lesson 2: The value of patience and a long-term perspective
In the early years you may not notice much of a difference in portfolio values
Keep saving and investing – disregard short-term market noise and stick to a plan
Lesson 3: Small differences in returns can amount to huge differences in portfolio values
Seemingly tiny differences in returns can result in large differences in portfolio values
Compounding is magic – take advantage of it when you can
Lesson 4: The importance of dealing with your fear of losing money
Letting your first instinct to avoid risky investments dictate what you own will work against you
Investing involves risk – best to manage rather than avoid risk
The pain and agony of losing money in any given year is alleviated over the long term by the higher returns typically accruing to higher risk investments
Lesson 5: Investing in your financial education pays off
Gaining a proper understanding of capital market relationships is an invaluable skill to possess
Leaning on financial experts to expedite your learning is no different than when athletes hire a coach
Much of the data used in these illustrations comes courtesy of Professor Aswath Domodaran from NYU and covers US annual asset returns from 1928 to 2017. Information presented herein is for discussion and illustrative purposes only and is not a recommendation or an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions. References to specific investment themes are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as recommendations or investment advice. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s own goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk.
This piece may contain assumptions that are “forward-looking statements,” which are based on certain assumptions of future events. Actual events are difficult to predict and may differ from those assumed. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will materialize or that actual returns or results will not be materially different from those described here.
Stock and bond markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Investing involves risk, including risk of loss.