Get ready to play the retirement game even more cautiously: The common wisdom that a 4% annual withdrawal rate is the safe way to avoid outliving your money is increasingly coming under fire. In fact, it may well become a thing of the past.

The theory was simple: If you spent a maximum of 4% per year of your retirement funds, the decline in principle will be slow enough that your money would last as long as you did. Though the percentage seems modest and the reasoning sound, this 4% rule ignores two factors that have become increasingly, glaringly relevant: first, market volatility, which has battered retirement savings over the last decade, and second, inflation, the silent force that erodes purchasing power year after year.

Reverse Dollar Cost Averaging

Bill Bengen, a financial adviser in Southern California, created the 4% rule in 1994, demonstrating in a study that if retirees followed the plan, and increased their withdrawals over the years to adjust for inflation, their savings would last them for 30 years.

However, plenty of later research shows the 4% rule simply doesn't work in today's economy if the money is invested in a typical stock-bond mix, interest rates are low, and the individual in question is a reasonably healthy 65 year old, according to Dave Babbel, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who specializes in investment strategies and asset/liability management.

One force that exacerbates the problem is "reverse dollar cost averaging," Babbel said. Traditional dollar cost averaging means investing equal amounts regularly into a portfolio. By doing so, the investor purchases more shares when prices are low, fewer when they're high, thus maximizing profits. It's a simple strategy that takes advantage of market volatility while accumulating assets.

But during the decumulation stage -- when pensioners are deriving their income from assets saved and drawing down their assets -- the effect can play out in reverse, Babbel said. When the value of a stock is lower, for example, you need to sell more shares to pay your bills, leaving you with even fewer shares positioned to benefit should the price rebound later.

This economic phenomenon makes it harder to protect your retirement assets. "The probabilities of savings not lasting as long as a life are simply too great for most risk averse people to tolerate," he said.

Retirement planning should always be individualized: Rules of thumb like the 4% withdrawal rate don't take into account variables in lifestyle, nor can they account for elements like market volatility and inflation.

Maybe Is a Four Letter Word

Uncertainty is the biggest threat of all when it comes to retirement.

"They say if you take out no more than 4% each year, you should be OK," said Pete D'Arruda, president of Capital Financial Advisory Group in Cary, N.C. "I don't like words like 'maybe,' or 'probably,' or 'should' or 'could.' Those are all bad words in retirement planning."

Studies based on the current economic climate say the number should be 3%, and even that may not be cautious enough. "That's not even a guarantee when you're taking money out for the 30 to 40 years of unemployment otherwise known as retirement," D'Arruda said.

And, says D'Arruda, when retirees are deciding which investments to sell to provide cash flow for everyday expenses, another common rule usually prevails.

"Murphy's Law triumphs in humans, and we naturally usually choose the wrong one to liquidate," he said.

There are any number of theories out there, and financial chatter flows in abundance, but to D'Arruda's mind, the sure thing is best in retirement. His conservative advice: Try CD laddering at 1%; fixed income annuities are better than the variable ones; get the fixed income annuities locked into your principle so you can't lose it. "Annuities -- there are more bad ones than good ones," D'Arruda said.

But whatever strategy you chose -- whether to risk more with the aim of generating more income in retirement, or play it a little more defensively -- approach the task as a realist, not a gambler.

Getting the Ball into the Retirement End Zone

The other issue with basing your retirement plan on simple rules is that it can lead to complacency. But the idea that you can "set it and forget it" and everything will be fine is a trap.

"There are so many 'experts' telling people different things, that they're not going to have to worry," D'Arruda said. "A rule means something in writing, something enforceable. But in retirement planning, there's a fluctuating source. You can't take a guarantee."

Further, those seemingly foolproof strategies can be difficult to execute.

At crunch-time -- the 10 years before retirement that he dubs "the financial red zone" -- you have to be extra vigilant about your savings. "[When] you're close to goal line, you have to wrap the ball up with two hands," D'Arruda said. " Throwing a Hail Mary isn't going to work in retirement. The market is all over the place."

Ultimately, the watchword should be caution.

And if it's a thrill you want?

"Go to Vegas and have some excitement with money you can afford to lose," D'Arruda said.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Goal Setting

Want to succeed? Then you need goals!

View Course »

Introduction to Preferred Shares

Learn the difference between preferred and common shares.

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:
Harold - CA@SPWCA

Unfortunately, this approach is now being scrutinized in countless studies these days — doesn’t deal with all of the risks retirees face in retirement

April 25 2012 at 4:06 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

My simple approach...which has worked well...when the gov't wants you to spend, I save. Do exactly the opposite of what the government proposes and you'll be fine. Refinance your mortgage to the shortest term you can afford, then pay it ahead. Pay off your auto loan, then hang onto the car for an extra year or so (or 5)...who are you trying to impress, anyhow? If you listen to Obama, you'll wind up trying to spend your way to've seen how well that works.

April 17 2012 at 6:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

All strategies are overshadowed by the fact the government requires a "minimum distribution" of your traditional IRA upon reaching 70 1/2 years of age. A 74 year old is required to withdraw 4.2%( based on life expectancy charts) of last year's assets during the calendar year or face a 50% penalty on the under withdrawal. A 78 year old has a mandatory withdrawal approaching 5% of prior year assets.

March 27 2012 at 1:36 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

"decline in principle"
"Principle" isn't the only thing in decline.

March 27 2012 at 1:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

a simple retirement all you can and spend as little as possible.

March 27 2012 at 12:09 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Just marry someone who is 20+++ years younger than you who is in good health and has a large income.

March 27 2012 at 11:48 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Actually the common wisdom is still good. An article like this just takes the "doomsday" scenario and projects it into infinity. It is no worse and no better than an article written at the top of the market proclaiming we can all retire tomorrow. Some "common wisdom" is required at all times.
There are two problems with articles like this and even articles that explain how to withdraw your money so it will last forever. First, the entities holding your money don't want to let go of it - for any reason. Let's not forget that while they are supposedly making money for you, they are also making some money for themselves.
The second problem with articles like these is that they typically make one withdrawal per YEAR. This can totally skew the results.
If you want to do the 4% plan you have to recalculate the 4% to a monthly % - .333% - and withdraw that amount each month. And the amount withdrawn needs to be recalculated each month based on your portfolio's total at that time. This is very hard and very hypothetical to project in a simulation.
The key to the program really is being willing to have your monthly income fluctuate some rather than seeking a completely fixed income.

March 27 2012 at 11:33 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

It is not what you save, it is what you spend. one year, you might take a cruise trip. another year, you might just stay home and enjoy the grandchildren. as you get older you spend less. at 65 to 70, i say enjoy yourself.
70 to 80 enjoy yourself in moderation, after 80, who cares!

March 27 2012 at 11:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

My dad, who was born the day WW1 started, always said that there is no way to plan, because nobody knows the future. He had lived through enough ups and downs to know.

It's all about timing. I have a friend who is 6 years older than me. 12 years ago she was far behind me in retirement funds and planning. She had the luck to get a really profitable job during her last 5 (2005-2009) years of working. She retired 3 years ago, moved to a cheaper area, started a small business, bought a house... and is now sitting pretty... and happy.

I lost my job 2 years ago... lost my medical coverage, am about to 99 out.... have gotten nothing but false leads and jobs that fall through.... Shall soon be into those retirement savings to live on.... and still have 7 years to go before full SS. If I try to hang in looking for work and spend down savings, I could be trapped in a very expensive place to live. However, where I am is the only place where there is work in my field..... so I'm in a dilemma.... stay, keep trying for work, while spending down.... or get out now, hope to get a job at anything.... and still be spending down retirement savings.

March 27 2012 at 11:18 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to legacykwst's comment

Get out now, and move in with your friend.

March 27 2012 at 12:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

There is no way to protect yourself from inflation.

March 27 2012 at 10:43 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply