New Post Advanced Search

Outliving your pension

70 replies 9.6K views
13567

Replies

  • westvwestv Forumite
    5.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes that looks to be right, which just floors me. People seem sanguine about 1.5% fees when at that level they are almost 50% of the spendable income you end up with. That will decrease as spending increases with inflation, but still it's an enormous amount of money to waste. And I think it is a waste for most people.


    But rate before costs is "only" something like 0.5% more.
  • JoeEnglandJoeEngland Forumite
    429 posts
    100 Posts Second Anniversary
    ✭✭
    PH91 wrote: »
    Hi all,

    Just wondering for people who are planning on leaving your DC pension pot invested after retiring, how are you planning to make it last so you don't run out of money?

    On a related note, is your choice to stay invested rather than buying an annuity predominantly driven by a desire to take a higher level of income than an annuity would offer, or the possibility of leaving some of it to children / grandchildren / others?

    I could not afford to retire now if I relied on an annuity so that's a non-starter as a way forward. We have a combination of DC pensions, small DB pensions and eventually SP. Our financial plan is based on cautious assumptions and modest income, and there's some contingency in it. Since working PT is also an option, our plan shows that we shouldn't run out of money. We could even have more money than expected in the long term if we're lucky with DC pension returns.
  • bostonerimusbostonerimus Forumite
    3.8K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    westv wrote: »
    But rate before costs is "only" something like 0.5% more.

    Costs/fees were not included in the original US 4% rule withdrawal models. If you have 1.5% in fees on top of that they have to come out of the 4% so you would end up with 2.5%....I'm assuming Jamesd's baseline SWR number is something like 4.7% but that one of the variable withdrawal strategies is being used. Even so, giving up 1.5% of a 4% to 5% withdrawal is ridiculous IMO.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
  • westvwestv Forumite
    5.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Costs/fees were not included in the original US 4% rule withdrawal models. If you have 1.5% in fees on top of that they have to come out of the 4% so you would end up with 2.5%....I'm assuming Jamesd's baseline SWR number is something like 4.7% but that one of the variable withdrawal strategies is being used. Even so, giving up 1.5% of a 4% to 5% withdrawal is ridiculous IMO.
    No that isn't correct. You don't take off the whole 1.5%.
  • edited 15 July 2019 at 11:16PM
    bostonerimusbostonerimus Forumite
    3.8K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 July 2019 at 11:16PM
    westv wrote: »
    No that isn't correct. You don't take off the whole 1.5%.

    As the withdrawal increases with inflation the fees become a smaller percentage of that withdrawal. Still, in the first year if you withdraw 4% and your financial fees over and above fund fees are 1.5% you have to pay them out of your 4% and are left with just 2.5% to spend. The playing down of fees as an issue comes from the financial industry and people like Kitces who look at the potential long term effects and come up with 1% fee reducing the SWR by around 0.4% over time. Kitces looks at this from a financial planner perspective and is looking to give advisors ammunition to justify their fees, so I take it with a massive grain of salt.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.1K posts
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    Yes that looks to be right, which just floors me. People seem sanguine about 1.5% fees when at that level they are almost 50% of the spendable income you end up with. That will decrease as spending increases with inflation, but still it's an enormous amount of money to waste. And I think it is a waste for most people.

    Very true, but the “100% success rate” claim is just wrong.
  • bostonerimusbostonerimus Forumite
    3.8K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    Mordko wrote: »
    Very true, but the “100% success rate” claim is just wrong.
    Well you can set the success level wherever you want, but 95% is more usual number to use.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
  • ThrugelmirThrugelmir Forumite
    72.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Well you can set the success level wherever you want, but 95% is more usual number to use.

    Rather like deciding not insuring your property against total loss through fire. Everyday it happens to someone somewhere. When you are personally one of the few affected it's too late to have regrets.
    “Markets have been so good for so long, that many investors are trivialising the advanatages of actively managing portfolio risk" - Gervais Williams
  • westvwestv Forumite
    5.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Rather like deciding not insuring your property against total loss through fire. Everyday it happens to someone somewhere. When you are personally one of the few affected it's too late to have regrets.

    Hardly the same. You'll have, say, 30 years to adjust withdrawal rates if things are running a bit tight. How many house fires last that long?
  • bostonerimusbostonerimus Forumite
    3.8K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary
    ✭✭✭✭
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Rather like deciding not insuring your property against total loss through fire. Everyday it happens to someone somewhere. When you are personally one of the few affected it's too late to have regrets.

    The long tail on the probability distribution means that setting a success rate at 100% can require very low withdrawal rates. Like many things its a balancing act. If you want to set a withdrawal rate at 100% success you will presumably also be using a lifespan that takes you well into the range of the "Queen's telegram"....or maybe she sends an SMS text message today.......and then you might as well just buy an annuity.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support