'4% rule' shouldn't be a rule, Wade Pfau says

May 19, 2013 @ 12:01 am

By Jeff Benjamin

In the debate over whether it is better to base a retirement income withdrawal rate on predictable historical returns or one that focuses on basic retirement needs, it appears that the jury is still out.

“Do you want to focus on the probability of failure or the magnitude of failure?” said Wade Pfau, associate professor of economics at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.

Mr. Pfau, who has led the conversation over new ways to manage a retirement income portfolio, presented his food for thought last week when he spoke at the Retirement In-come Summit.

The two schools of thought, as he ex-plained them, include a “probability-based” approach of establishing a 4% withdrawal rate, and the “safety-first” approach that involves taking defensive measures to ensure that basic retirement needs are met.

The investment approach for the probability-based strategy, for example, relies on systematic withdrawals and typically applies a total-return perspective.

PYRAMID APPROACH

In the safety-first approach, by contrast, the portfolio assets are matched to goals, and lifetime spending potential is the focus, as opposed to maximizing wealth.

In a model arranged as a pyramid, the bottom layer in the safety-first approach is dedicated to essential needs, followed by a contingency-fund layer, discretionary-expenses layer and finally a legacy fund at the top.

“Volatile assets are not appropriate for basic needs,” Mr. Pfau said. “You think of essential versus discretionary.”

The fact that Mr. Pfau wouldn't commit to one approach over the other underscores the need for flexibility and open-mindedness on the part of financial advisers.

“Risk is not whether a portfolio goes up or down in value; it's the risk to one's lifestyle that matters,” he said. “The risk is that events will take place that would force someone's lifestyle or consumption to divert from where they want to be.”

Part of the argument for a safety-first approach is that amid low interest rates, a 4% withdrawal rate could challenge a lot of portfolios, which could result in more risk than some clients can stomach, Mr. Pfau said.

“There's a lot more to retirement income than just the 4% rule, especially in a time like this when interest rates are so low and we have an overvalued stock market,” he said. “I think it's important to think more holistically about retirement income, and I'm trying to be agnostic about these two different schools.”

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Events

Carson Group's Schaben: Making sense of millennials

Lazy, entitled, the trophy generation: These are stereotypes most often associated with millennials. But why are these myths and not realities. Carson Group's Aaron Schaben explains.

Video Spotlight

The Search for Income

Sponsored by PGIM Investments

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

How does your advisory firm stack up?

Comparing a firm's pay to the competition can point out vast flaws.

10 signs your client is cheating on you

Sure signs that clients may be on the way out the door.

Morgan Stanley sees slower fee-based asset flows on fiduciary rule delay

Flows to advisory accounts, while still higher than the start of 2016, dropped off more than 20% from Q2 and were the lowest in a year.

How adviser salaries stack up to other jobs

Median compensation hovers just under $100,000 on the low end and reaches nearly $300,000 for bosses.

Finra ranking brokers in effort to crack down on industry's bad apples

All 634.403 reps have been ranked based on factors such as prior regulatory disclosures, disciplinary actions and employment history.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print