Why Four Percent For Retirement?

Why are retirement plans often created assuming a 4% withdrawal rate?

When retirement planners try to estimate just how much money a couple or individual should take out of their savings annually, their model scenarios often assume a 4% annual withdrawal rate. Why is 4% used so frequently? Was that percentage plucked out of thin air? No, it actually became popular back in the 1990s.

The “Trinity Study” helped popularize the 4% guideline. In 1998, a trio of professors at San Antonio’s Trinity University analyzed historical market data between 1925 and 1995 in search of a “sustainable” withdrawal rate. They used five different portfolio compositions - 100% stocks, 100% bonds, and 25/75, 50/50 and 75/25 mixes. (For purposes of the study, “stocks” equaled the S&P 500 and “bonds” equaled long-term, high-grade domestic debt instruments.) They tried to see which withdrawal rates would leave these portfolios with positive values at the end of 15, 20, 25 and 30 years.

Their conclusion? If you are retired and withdraw more than 5% annually, you increase the chances of depleting your portfolio during your lifetime.

Subsequently, another such study was conducted by RetireEarly.com using financial market data from 1871 to 1998 – and that report reached the same conclusion.

However, that wasn’t all the study had to say. The “Trinity Study” made some other conclusions that were not entirely in agreement. The professors maintained that most retirees should have 50% or more of their portfolios in stocks. But they also noted that retirees withdrawing just 3-4% a year from stock-dominated portfolios may end up helping their heirs get rich while hurting their own standard of living.

Perhaps most interestingly, the study concluded that an 8-9% withdrawal rate from a stock-heavy portfolio was sustainable for a period of 15 years or less – but not for longer periods. In other words, while our parents and grandparents could confidently withdraw 8-9%, we who might easily live to age 90 or 100 probably can’t.

Another 4% advocate: Bill Bengen. In 1994, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner William P. Bengen published a landmark article in the Journal of Financial Planning presenting his own research findings on withdrawal rates from retirement savings. While Bengen published this article in the middle of a long bull market, he factored in the possibility of extended bear markets, minimal annual stock market gains and sustained high inflation.

Looking at 75 years worth of stock market returns and retirement scenarios, Bengen concluded that a retiree who was 50-75% invested in stocks should draw down a portfolio by 4% or less per year. He felt that retirees who did this had a great chance of making their retirement money last a lifetime. In contrast, he felt that retirees taking 5% annual withdrawals had about a 30% possibility of eventually outliving their money. He put that risk at better than 50% for retirees withdrawing 6-7% per year.

Over time, people began to call Bengen’s dictum the “4% drawdown rule”. The model 4% income distribution could be inflation-adjusted – in year one, 4% of a portfolio could be withdrawn, in year two that 4% withdrawal amount could be sweetened by .03% for 3% inflation, and so on.

A dissenting view. In 2009, William Sharpe (one of the Nobel Prize-winning principals of Modern Portfolio Theory) published an article in the Journal of Investment Management contending that “it is time to replace the 4% rule with approaches better grounded in fundamental economic analysis.” Sharpe thinks that “the 4% rule's approach to spending and investing wastes a significant portion of a retiree's savings and is thus prima facie inefficient.” If a portfolio underperforms, he notes, you have a spending shortfall; and if it surpasses performance expectations, you end up with a “wasted surplus”.

So in Sharpe’s view, by adhering to a 4% rule, you either risk living too large or short-changing yourself. Therefore, it would be better to constantly fine-tune a withdrawal rate according to time horizon and market conditions.

While not necessarily a rule, 4% is a frequent recommendation. There is some compelling research to support the “4% rule”, and that is why financial advisers often cite it and tell retirees not to withdraw too much.

Would withdrawing 4% of your portfolio annually (with adjustments for inflation) allow you to live well? For some of us, the answer will be yes; others will need to address an income shortfall. As we retire, most of us will want to practice some degree of growth investing. Now may be the right time to talk about it.

Taxing the Rich to Pay for Health Care

That’s part of the plan. How will you be affected?


In 2013, wealthy Americans will pay extra Medicare taxes. Congress, President Obama and the IRS are putting a surcharge on the wealthy to help fund the health care reforms.

• Beginning in 2013, joint filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or greater and single filers with AGI of $200,000 or greater will have to pay 0.9% extra in FICA taxes (that is, Social Security and Medicare taxes). The employers of these taxpayers face no such increase.
• Also, joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $250,000 or more and single filers with MAGI of $200,000 or more will be docked with a 3.8% tax on investment income. (Even estates and trusts will be subject to this new 3.8% levy.)

What might the dollar impact be? The Tax Foundation, a politically conservative watchdog organization, thinks that the richest 1% of American families will pay an average of $52,000 more in federal taxes by 2016.

What are the chances of these tax hikes being repealed? Think slim and none. Basically, you’d have to repeal the health care reforms to make it happen.

How can you avoid the 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains & interest? It won’t be easy. Real estate investors may luck out the most, because federal law characterizes rental income as “active” rather than “passive”. On the other hand, if you sell a home you’ve owned for decades and see a taxable gain above the home sale exclusion ($250,000 single, $500,000 married), you’ll face the 3.8% tax.

Some forms of unearned income won’t be slapped with the tax. IRA distributions and income distributions from 401(a), 403(b) and 457(b) plans will be exempt. The same goes for pension income and Social Security income. Annuities that are part of a pension plan will be exempt. Any income from a business that you participate in won’t be hit with the 3.8% tax. Veterans’ benefits, life insurance payouts and interest earned by municipal bonds will also be spared.

As a result of this tax, you might start to see subtle shifts in financial strategy. You might see more muni bond purchases, more interest in life insurance, and more installment sales. As qualified Roth IRA distributions don’t boost AGI, you might be looking at another factor promoting Roth IRA conversions. Everybody will think about taking some capital gains prior to 2013.

The richest Americans have paid less tax in recent decades. Wealth for the Common Good (a liberal non-profit looking at this matter) notes that in 1955, the 400 largest incomes in America paid 51.2% of those incomes back in federal taxes. That led to the “tax shelters” of the 1960s and 1970s. In comparison, the top 400 incomes in America in 2007 paid out only an average of 16.6% in federal taxes.

So how can you reduce your taxes in 2013? It is not too early to think about it. You might want to devote a planning session to this topic, or start to read up on your options.

The 2 Biggest Retirement Misconceptions

While the idea of retirement has changed, certain financial assumptions haven’t.
We’ve all heard about the “new retirement”, the mix of work and play that many of us assume we will have in our lives one day. We do not expect “retirement” to be all leisure. While this is becoming a cultural assumption among baby boomers, it is interesting to see that certain financial assumptions haven’t really changed with the times.

In particular, there are two financial misconceptions that baby boomers can fall prey to – assumptions that could prove financially harmful for their future.

#1) Assuming retirement will last 10-15 years. Historically, retirement has lasted about 10-15 years for most Americans. The key word here is “historically”. When Social Security was created in 1933, the average American could anticipate living to age 61. By 2005, life expectancy for the average American had increased to 78.

However, some of us may live much longer. The population of centenarians in the U.S. is growing rapidly – the Census Bureau estimated 71,000 of them in 2005 and projects 114,000 for 2010 and 241,000 in 2020. It also believes that 7.3 million Americans will be 85 or older in 2020, up from 5.1 million 15 years earlier.

If you’re reading this article, chances are you might be wealthy or at least “affluent”. And if you are, you likely have good health insurance and access to excellent health care. You may be poised to live longer because of these two factors. Given the landmark health care reforms of the Obama administration, we could see another boost in overall American longevity in the generation ahead.

Here’s the bottom line: every year, the possibility is increasing that your retirement could last 20 or 30 years … or longer. So assuming you’ll only need 10 or 15 years worth of retirement money could be a big mistake.

In 2010, the American Academy of Actuaries says that the average 65-year-old American male can expect to live to 84½, with a 30% chance of living past 90. The average 65-year-old American female has an average life expectancy of 87, with a 40% chance of living past 90.

Most people don’t realize how much retirement money they may need. There is a relationship between Misconception #1 and Misconception #2 …

#2) Assuming too little risk. Our appetite for risk declines as we get older, and rightfully so. Yet there may be a danger in becoming too risk-averse.

Holding onto your retirement money is certainly important; so is your retirement income and quality of life. There are three financial issues that can affect your quality of life and/or income over time: taxes, health care costs and inflation.

Will the minimal inflation we’ve seen at the start of the 2010s continue for years to come? Don’t count on it. Over the last few decades, we have had moderate inflation (and sometimes worse, think 1980). What happens is that over time, even 3-4% inflation gradually saps your purchasing power. Your dollar buys less and less.

Here’s a hypothetical challenge for you: for the rest of this year, you have to live on the income you earned in 1999. Could you manage that?

This is an extreme example, but that’s what can happen if your income doesn’t keep up with inflation – essentially, you end up living on yesterday’s money.

Taxes will likely be higher in the coming decade. So tax reduction and tax-advantaged investing have taken on even more importance whether you are 20, 40 or 60. Health care costs are climbing – we need to be prepared financially for the cost of acute, chronic and long-term care.

As you retire, you may assume that an extremely conservative approach to investing is mandatory. But given how long we may live - and how long retirement may last - growth investing is extremely important.

No one wants the “Rip Van Winkle” experience in retirement. No one should “wake up” 20 years from now only to find that the comfort of yesterday is gone. Retirees who retreat from growth investing may risk having this experience.

How are you envisioning retirement right now? Has your vision of retirement changed? Is retiring becoming more and more of a priority? Are you retired and looking to improve your finances? Regardless of where you’re at, it is vital to avoid the common misconceptions and proceed with clarity.