How To Start Planning For Your Retirement.
By admin on Dec 23, 2009 in Retirement Planning
Knowing how to plan for retirement is a serious issue. That’s why I get so angry when misinformation gets floated around.
That’s how I felt yesterday when I read Motley Fool’s piece, “This is what you need when you retire.”
The post argues that once you near or enter retirement, you’ll probably need to generate income from your investments. That’s true for some people. Ok. I’m not going to argue that.
But the post goes on to suggest that folks need to invest in either CD’s, bonds, preferred stock or immediate annuities in order to create that income.
I don’t have a big problem with these investments. But they sure aren’t the smartest way to create retirement income if you are planning on living for 10 years or longer after you retire. (More on that in a bit.)
No, Motley Fool lived up to it’s name when it published that piece because it left out one of the most important investments you can make if you are interested in retirement income -equities.
Should you put all your money in equities all the time? I don’t think so. But you shouldn’t ignore these investments or shy away from them just because you reach a certain age.
You have to consider your investment time horizon before you make an investment decision. Often, that has little to do with reaching life’s milestones – like retiring.
When you retire, what you should be most concerned with is how long and how much you can withdraw from your nest egg…right?
Say you retire at age 65. How long are you going to live?
Statistically, you’ve got a good 25 years to go. That means your investments have got to keep working another 25 years….right? Simple. Even a motley fool should understand that…
But if you shift most of your money into bonds at that point, you may not make it..
Of course, if you do shift all your money into fixed income investments, you wouldn’t be alone.. After all, we just finished one of the worst decades ever for equity investors. It’s been a terrible ten years. On top of that, the geniuses at Motley Fool are telling everyone to move assets into fixed income when they retire.
But take a look at the chart below.
It shows how long you could make inflation-adjusted withdrawals from your account before running out of money.
I’ve highlighted two examples. The first shows that had you invested 75% of your money in equities and 25% in bonds and withdrawn (inflation adjusted) 5% for 30 years, you would have succeeded 98% of the time. Meaning, had you done this you would have run out of money before you ran out of life only 2% of the time.
On the other hand, had you invested all your money in bonds like the Fools of Motley encourage you to do, you’d be able to stay retired only 20% of the time. In the other 80% of the cases, you’d go back to work or move in with the kids. I’m not sure if the folks at Motley Fool have enough room in their mansions for everyone who follows their advice.
Do stocks always beat bonds? They certainly do not. Sometimes, as you already know, stocks can do really nasty things for a very long time. In fact, we just finished a particularly difficult decade with stocks showing no return.
I am simply saying that to ignore an asset class that is probably the most important asset tool at your disposal to create retirement income is a huge oversight and one which must be addressed.
What say you? Should people who retire put more money into bonds and fixed income? Did you do that when you retired? Or are you planning on doing so?
Like this article? You will love getting my free brilliant financial updates! No spam, and I won't give your email address to any other person or company. That's a personal promise. Neal Frankle, Certified Financial Planner, Los Angeles, California.
Related posts:
- How You Should Be Planning Your Retirement – For Singles // If you are single, you should be planning...
- Your Retirement Income Planning – Made Simple You can eliminate your fear of retirement by taking...
- Planning Your Retirement Without Worrying About High Interest Rates, Inflation or Income Taxes If you are planning your retirement or trying to...
- Investing for Retirement? Don’t Ignore Your Emotions (Part II) Last week you provided some great advice to Denise,...



Subscribe via RSS

Follow @NealFrankle on Twitter
Become a fan on Facebook!
Watch my videos on YouTube!


10 Comment(s)
By Rob Bennett on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
I agree that it’s foolish to take your money out of stocks when you retire. You may be retired for three decades. You’re going to accept returns of about half what you could get in equities for that entire time-period? That makes little sense to me.
The reason why this advice has become somewhat popular is the perceived riskiness of stocks. I believe that the riskiness of stocks has been greatly overstated because of the dominance of the Buy-and-Hold model in recent decades. Almost all of the risk of stock investing comes from going with a high stock allocation at times of insanely dangerous prices (stocks have never performed poorly in the long term starting from a time of reasonable prices but have always performed poorly in the long term starting from a time of high prices). The obvious answer (in my view!): Discard Buy-and-Hold! Pay Attention to Price!
It’s far more risky for a non-retiree to invest heavily in stocks at a time of high valuations than it is for a retiree to invest heavily in stocks at a time of overvaluation, in my assessment. I say “Yes!” to stocks during retirement but “No!” to overpriced stocks at all times.
Rob
Rob Bennett´s last blog ..Podcast #191 — The Behavior Gap
[Reply]
Neal@WealthPilgrim Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
I agree Rob. The perceived risk is defined by the short-term even though the goals are long-term.
The MF’s (Motley Fools) wrote an article playing to those fears (see comment below). That just bugs me.
Neal@WealthPilgrim´s last blog ..How To Invest and Retire – The Unconvention Yet Clever Way
[Reply]
By Evan on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
The difference, Neal, is that you prepare your calcs, pursuant to your client’s individual needs. The fool needs to provide an article that will appeal to the masses.
Evan´s last blog ..What Did African Americans Think Obama was Going to do?
[Reply]
Neal@WealthPilgrim Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
OK….good point. I see that.
Just the same, when you or I write, don’t we have a responsibility to be a bit more complete.
Sure, the article they wrote will appeal to more folks…..but it may also damage them.
Neal@WealthPilgrim´s last blog ..How To Invest and Retire – The Unconvention Yet Clever Way
[Reply]
By Ken on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
I do think equities need to be a part of someone’s retirement plan. The argument for them long term is still relevant. People have different levels of tolerance for risk in their portfolios. IMHO if you’re 40 or 60 you still need equties in there.
Ken´s last blog ..How to Finance Fun
[Reply]
By Jackie on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
I think a good mix of stocks are an important part of an after-retirement portfolio, but that it should also be re-evaluated regularly. Emotions come into play too. It can be hard to be 80 and watch your portfolio drop by 40%, even though you probably still do have a 10 year investment horizon.
Jackie´s last blog ..Dealing with Detractors When Doing Things Differently
[Reply]
Neal@WealthPilgrim Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
You hit the nail on the head. The emotions play a huge role. It might make sense for an individual NOT to have equities.
But to talk about retirement income and ignore the entire asset class?
I’m just saying…hey MF (Motley Fool), let’s be a bit more intellectually honest.
Neal@WealthPilgrim´s last blog ..How To Invest and Retire – The Unconvention Yet Clever Way
[Reply]
By Tim Wright on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
Hi,
I don’t use bonds I use MLP’s like KMP, OKS, instead of Bonds. One of my MLP’s this year only lost about 6% and yet was yielding 9% in dividends. Whats you thought on this Neal?
Tim
Love your blog, thanks so much.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Well…the MLP would act like a bond if it holds bonds. It simply gives you more diversification.
[Reply]
By Tim Wright on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
I use them as income like bonds but with growth potential and inflation protection. The return on bonds is much lower than an MLP.
Tim
[Reply]
By neal@wealthpilgrim on Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
How does that work Tim? What’s held within the MLP? If that’s the case, they must include growth stocks and high-yield bonds….
Doesn’t it depend on the securities w/in the MLP?
neal@wealthpilgrim´s last blog ..How To Invest and Retire – The Unconvention Yet Clever Way
[Reply]
By Financial Samurai on Dec 24, 2009 | Reply
Sorry Neal, but statistically, we actually only have 13 years left to live if we retire at age 65, that’s why I’m hell bent on retiring before the age of 45, NO MATTER WHAT!
Equities aren’t a cornerstone for retirees at all. Instead, they are a risky desperate attempt to try and make more money.
No matter how much money I accumulate, I will probably never ACTIVELY invest more than $50-100,000 in the markets. Yes, I can leverage it up to $150-300,000 and make punts, but the most I will lose is 50-100K, and that’s that. No way am I going to dump everything else in the markets. Not worth it to me and it shouldn’t be for retirees either!
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..Everything Is Rational – The Answer To All Things Irrational
[Reply]
By Neal Frankle on Dec 24, 2009 | Reply
Sam,
At birth, you are right, you have a life expectancy of 78. But if you are 65, according to SSA gov stats, female has about 20 years to go. Male has a bit under 17.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
Also, what do you base your dislike of having equities as a component of a 20-year – or in your case – 13 year investment horizon?
Neal Frankle´s last blog ..Plan For Retirement – The Unconvention Yet Clever Way
[Reply]
Financial Samurai Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Those stats are lies, all lies! We can’t count on living past 78 years old, and we can’t on transforming into women when we’re 65! :p
Equities weren’t fun in 1997, 2001-2003, and 2008-2009. I’d rather just earn 4-6% in fixed income, than try and put my entire NUT in the equities market.
It’s about building the NUT first, and nut rely on equities to build the NUT. Once you have $500,000 in the bank for example, a 5% return starts making a diff (25K) with zero risk.
But, to try and get a 25% return investing your 100K in the stock market…. not worth it.
I’m risk adverse with my portfolio… but I do love to punt with 50K every year and hope for a 10 bagger!
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..Everything Is Rational – The Answer To All Things Irrational
[Reply]
By Doctor Stock on Dec 27, 2009 | Reply
It’s not so much where our money is… it is how we invest it, particularly when we sell. Too often, retirement and stocks means investors buy and hold… and then… crash. It’s more important to know when to get out, than to buy a bunch of bonds because people won’t think.
[Reply]
neal@wealthpilgrim Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Doc,
I personally agree that the system investors use is critical. Allocation is the most influential factor on returns but after that, it’s the system you use.
The problem is that all systems fail at times. Investors often abandon their system when it underperforms because they have unrealistic expectations.
neal@wealthpilgrim´s last blog ..Free Holiday Weight Loss Program – Modern Miracle or Flash in the Pan?
[Reply]