Safe withdrawal rate что это

Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) Method

Marguerita is a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®), Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor (CRPC®), Retirement Income Certified Professional (RICP®), and a Chartered Socially Responsible Investing Counselor (CSRIC). She has been working in the financial planning industry for over 20 years and spends her days helping her clients gain clarity, confidence, and control over their financial lives.

What Is the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) Method?

The safe withdrawal rate (SWR) method is one way that retirees can determine how much money they can withdraw from their accounts each year without running out of money before reaching the end of their lives.

The safe withdrawal rate method is a conservative approach that tries to balance having enough money to live comfortably with not depleting retirement savings prematurely. It is based largely on the portfolio’s value at the beginning of retirement.

Key Takeaways

How Much Should Retirees Withdraw From Accounts?

Understanding the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) Method

Figuring out how to use your retirement savings isn’t easy because there are so many unknowns, including how the market will perform, how high inflation will be, whether you will develop additional expenses (such as medical), and your life expectancy. The longer you expect to live, the longer the time period you need to cover, which means you may experience more «unknowns» or factors that you can’t control. In addition, the worse the market performs, the more likely you are to run out of money.

The safe withdrawal rate method tries to prevent these worst-case scenarios from happening by instructing retirees to take out only a small percentage of their portfolio each year, typically 3% to 4%. Financial experts recommended safe withdrawal rates have changed over the years as experience has illustrated what really works and what doesn’t work and why.

Knowing what safe withdrawal rate you’d like to use in retirement also informs how much you need to save during your working years. If you want to withdraw more money per year, then clearly, you’ll need to have more money saved. However, the amount of money you might need to live on might change throughout your retirement. For example, you might want to travel in the early years and, therefore, would likely spend more money versus the later years. As a result, your safe withdrawal rate could be structured so that you would withdraw 4%, for example, in the early years and 3% in the later years.

The 4% rule is a guideline used as a safe withdrawal rate, particularly in early retirement, to help prevent retirees from running out of money.

How to Calculate the Safe Withdrawal Rate

The safe withdrawal rate helps you determine a minimum amount to withdraw in retirement to cover your basic need expenses, such as rent, electricity, and food. As a rule of thumb, many retirees use 4% as their safe withdrawal rate—called the 4% rule.

The 4% rule states that you withdraw no more than 4% of your starting balance each year in retirement. However, the 4% rule doesn’t guarantee you won’t run out of money, but it does help your portfolio withstand market downturns, by limiting how much is withdrawn. In this way, you have a much better chance of not running out of money in retirement.

Although there are a few ways to calculate your safest withdrawal rate, the formula below is a good start:

If you believe you’ll need a higher or lower amount of income in retirement, here are a few examples:

Limitations of the Safe Withdrawal Rate Method

A shortcoming of the safe withdrawal rate method is that depending on when you retire, the economic conditions can be very different from what initial retirement models assume. A 4% withdrawal rate may be safe for one retiree yet cause another to run out of money prematurely, depending on factors such as asset allocation and investment returns during retirement.

Alternatives to the Safe Withdrawal Rate Method

People often make the mistake in retirement that they continue spending too much even at times when their portfolio is down. This behavior can increase the possibility of failure (POF) rate, or the percentage of simulated portfolios that fail to last to the end of a person’s expected retirement.

An alternative to the safe withdrawal rate method is dynamic updating—a method that, in addition to considering projected longevity and market performance, factors in the income you might receive after retirement and reevaluates how much you can withdraw each year based on changes in inflation and portfolio values.

Источник

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 14: Sequence of Return Risk

This is a long overdue post considering how much we’ve written about safe withdrawal rates already. Sequence of Return Risk, sometimes also called Sequence Risk, is the scourge of early retirement. Or any retirement for that matter. So, here we go, finally, we have a designated post on this topic for our Safe Withdrawal Rate series (check here to go to the first post and also make sure you download Big Ern’s SSRN working paper on the topic).

-> ChooseFI Podcast What is Sequence of Return Risk?

Investopedia has a nice definition:

“[s]equence-of-returns risk is the risk of receiving lower or negative returns early in a period when withdrawals are made from an individual’s underlying investments. The order or the sequence of investment returns is a primary concern for retirees who are living off the income and capital of their investments.”

The order/sequence of returns is irrelevant for buy and hold investors. But the sequence matters when there are additional cash flows throughout the investment horizon!

Savers are impacted by Sequence of Return Risk, too!

Sequence of Return Risk: A retiree’s loss is a saver’s gain! It is literally a zero-sum game!

Cash Flows of Retiree and Saver add up to the Buy and Hold Strategy. Sequence of Return Risk is thus a zero-sum game!

We have benefited greatly from Sequence of Return Risk!

Yes, you heard that right. The ERN family has benefited from SRR over the last decade or so. You can probably already see where we are going with this, so let’s do the following more thorough calculation. Let’s look at monthly real equity returns from our SWR study database and simulate 10-year rolling windows of three investors:

Clearly, we have a zero-sum situation again: The cash flows of investors 2 and 3 add up to the buy and hold strategy because the savings and withdrawals exactly cancel out each other.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of three investors over 10-year rolling windows. Despite lackluster equity returns over the last 10 years (2007-2017) the saver made over 10% IRR p.a.

Another way to look at the same image to better bring out the zero-sum game feature: Subtract the IRR of the Buy and Hold (the blue line) from the retiree and saver IRR, i.e., calculate the incremental IRR above the Buy and Hold investor, see chart below:

Yup, it’s a zero-sum game! Whenever the retiree underperforms the Buy and Hold investor, the Saver will beat the Buy and Hold Investor.

Side note: The zero-sum feature applies only to the cash flows. The incremental IRRs don’t sum to zero for (at least) two reasons: 1) the IRR calculation is a highly non-linear affair, and 2) in this example, the saver has less money invested, on average, which explains why the magnitude of the excess IRR of the saver is much higher than that of the retiree. But you can show that the incremental IRRs will always have opposite signs.

Needless to say, occasionally, the saver will get hammered, too! For the 10-year windows that started between 1993 and 1995 and ended between 2003 and 2005, the situation is reversed: The retiree experienced the very strong returns early during the 10-year window. The saver, in contrast, participated to a much lower degree in the late-1990s equity rally but then got slammed in the 2001-2003 bear market, right when he/she had the maximum portfolio value. Murphy’s Law! That’s the dip in the green line in the early 2000s.

Just for fun, here’s also the longer time series, starting in 1900. The +5% outperformance for the saver over of the most recent 10-year window seems impressive but it’s not the highest in history. The 10-year window that ended in late 1939, of course, was even better for savers: they benefited from the steep drop in equities during 1929 and the early 1930s! Of course, in the window that started just a few years later (1932-1942) the result is reversed: As a saver you do significantly worse than the Buy and Hold investor because of the strong recovery from the stock market trough.

100+ years of Retiree vs. Saver Zero Sum Games!

One more cool plot I created: In the chart below, let’s look at how the equity market performs over the 10 years when the saver IRR either significantly beats the Buy and Hold strategy (blue bars), is about in line with the Buy and Hold strategy (green bars) and significantly lags behind the Buy and Hold strategy (maroon bars). As expected, the profile of equity returns is increasing over the 10-year window when the saver benefits from SRR. But that exactly the return profile when the retiree loses the most!

When the saver significantly beats the Buy and Hold IRR it’s because equity returns are low early on and high toward the end of the 10-year window. When the saver significantly falls behind the Buy and Hold IRR, returns tend to be high initially and low toward the end of the 10-year window!

» data-medium-file=»https://i1.wp.com/earlyretirementnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/srr-chart07.png?fit=300%2C262&ssl=1″ data-large-file=»https://i1.wp.com/earlyretirementnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/srr-chart07.png?fit=724%2C633&ssl=1″ loading=»lazy» src=»https://i1.wp.com/earlyretirementnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/srr-chart07.png?resize=724%2C633&ssl=1″ alt=»SRR Chart07″ width=»724″ height=»633″ data-recalc-dims=»1″ data-lazy-src=»https://i1.wp.com/earlyretirementnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/srr-chart07.png?resize=724%2C633&is-pending-load=1#038;ssl=1″ srcset=»″> When the saver significantly beats the Buy and Hold IRR it’s because equity returns are low early on and high toward the end of the 10-year window. When the saver significantly falls behind the Buy and Hold IRR, returns tend to be high initially and low toward the end of the 10-year window!

One more thing…

One more thing occurred to me: Before doing this research, it would be easy for us to believe that in retirement we don’t have to worry about a bear market because we did quite well with our portfolio during the accumulation phase between 2000 and 2017. Despite all that market turmoil! You read this quite often in the FIRE blog community! But that’s a delusion: the retirees’ losses during that time were our gains due to the zero-sum feature we pointed out here:

The fact that we did well during 2000-2017 should actually worry us more about volatility in retirement, not less.

Conclusion

Sequence of return risk is a symmetric risk: you can benefit from it or it can seriously harm your investment returns. It impacts both retirees and savers and the risk is exactly a zero-sum game. Sometimes the retiree loses and the saver gains, as in the 2000s, but there were many instances where this was reversed.

Источник

Determining a Safe Retirement Withdrawal Rate

When planning for your retirement, you should consider what would be a safe annual withdrawal rate for you: the percentage of your accumulated wealth you could withdraw every year without running out of money before you die. That involves taking into consideration the total amount of your savings and other projected retirement income, including the continuing growth of your investment accounts, as well as how much you expect to spend each year.

Here’s an example of how a withdrawal rate works:

Key Takeaways

4 or 4.5 Percent

Ever since financial planner Bill Bengen came up with the 4 percent rule, aka the Bengen rule, in 1994, many financial advisers have been recommending 4 percent as a safe annual withdrawal rate to ensure retirees’ money lasts for 30 years.

In an interview with the American Association of Individual Investors’ AAII Journal from January 2018, Bengen said he’s now suggesting that an inflation-adjusted 4.5 percent annual withdrawal rate is safe. He recommended broader classes of investments than he was able to obtain data on for his 1994 Journal of Financial Planning article, which tracked the experiences of investors from 1926 to 1986. And he said high inflation is a bigger threat to having enough money for retirement than low investment returns, though he said a long bear market can also have a devastating effect on retirees.

Inflation Adjustment

Bengen suggested starting with the consumer price index (CPI), which can be used as a basis for calculating the annual rate of inflation, to determine your own personal inflation rate. Let’s say you saw an increase in medical costs in the previous year that was higher than expected based on inflation. You would want to increase your inflation rate a bit to account for that and so arrive at a personal inflation rate of 4.2 percent.

Taxes and RMDs

Bengen’s rule does not take taxes into consideration. All withdrawals except those from a Roth IRA, which was funded with after-tax dollars, will be subject to federal income tax. You should calculate how big your annual tax payment will be and keep that in mind when determining how much to withdrawal.

Once you reach the age of 70 1/2, the Internal Revenue Service requires you to begin making withdrawals from your retirement accounts, again with the exception of a Roth IRA, because the IRS has already gotten its cut of the money you invested there. These required minimum distributions (RMDs) are determined based on a factor the IRS arrived at that’s based on your life expectancy.

Yearly Updates

It’s important to monitor your withdrawal rate, your remaining amounts of money, and your spending each year. You need to make sure your spending is at a healthy, sustainable rate when compared with the size of your investment portfolio and other retirement savings accounts.

If your portfolio had a bad year, you might want to lower your withdrawal rate and decrease spending. In a great year, you could increase your withdrawal rate and reward yourself with a nice trip to a new locale.

A Couple of Useful Approaches

One way to make sure you don’t withdraw too much is to set up a systematic withdrawal plan that directly deposits a set amount of money from your investments into your checking account. These regular withdrawals serve as paychecks, and if you spend only what you’re «paid,» you won’t go through money that was earmarked for a future year.

Another approach that’s been successful for some retirees is to invest using a time-segmented system in which your investments are made to match the time frame of when you will need them. For example, a certificate of deposit (CD) may mature each year to meet your spending needs for that year.

Источник

The Safe Withdrawal Rate Series – A Guide for First-Time Readers

Update 11/15/2021: if you like to navigate across the different parts of the series, there is an easy way:

As suggested by several readers now, here’s a new “landing page” for everyone interested in my Safe Withdrawal Rate Series, which has now grown to 40+ posts. What is a reader new to this topic supposed to do? Read from the beginning to the end? Seems intimidating! It almost feels like there will be a quiz at the end of the series. No worries, there isn’t! 🙂

But seriously, just because I wrote this comprehensive series in this order doesn’t mean that one should read it in that order. Keep in mind that this whole series was a learning experience for me as well, so reading parts 1 through the end will seem a bit jumpy at times. In fact, a lot of the posts came about because readers suggested I check out certain sub-topics and all that came about in random order. If I were to write this series again today, from scratch, with everything I know today or if I were to write a book I would obviously structure this very differently. It would be unfair to new readers to make them go through the entire series! Which convinced me to write this new page, so newcomers feel less intimidated starting their own thought process on Safe Withdrawal Rates!

How do I even get started with this series?

Introduction to Sequence of Return Risk

Why are we even worried about running out of money in retirement at all? Over the long haul, stocks should return much more than 4%. And a retirement horizon of 30 years for a traditional retiree and 50+ years for an early retiree certainly qualifies as long-run, right? Well, not so fast! What I learned from my historical simulations is that you can still run out of money even if your 30-year or even 50+-year average return was way above your withdrawal rate. If returns were bad enough initially and you keep withdrawing through the bear market there is a chance you deplete your portfolio so severely that even the subsequent bull market and recovery will not save you. The sequence of returns matters. Low returns early on are poison to your retirement finances. It’s like the opposite of Dollar-Cost Averaging; you sell more shares when prices are down!

A question I keep getting: Is there ever a time when we can stop worrying about Sequence Risk? Unfortunately, Sequence Risk will be with you for longer than the often-quoted 5-10 years. See Part 38 for details.

The effect of Supplemental Cash Flows (Social Security, Pensions, etc.) on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Why the Trinity Study success/failure probabilities don’t easily apply to you and me

My main “beef” with the Trinity Study? Even if your personal financial situation exactly fits the model assumptions of the Trinity Study – a 30-year horizon and no additional cash flows – I’d not take the Trinity Study success probabilities very seriously, for the following reasons:

Calculate your own personalized(!) Safe Withdrawal Rate with our free Google Sheet

What does all of this Safe Withdrawal research really mean for me personally? Nobody wants to read just a bunch of academic-style research on this topic. The problem I always had with the existing body of research, whether it’s from academics or practitioners, is that my personal financial situation looks completely different from their “model household.” I like to be able to make adjustments for my specific situation, for example…

So, I decided to publish the exact same Google Sheet I use myself (though not with my precise personal data) to gauge my personal Safe Withdrawal Rate:

The sheet may not be 100% self-explanatory, so please refer to Part 7 for the basic instructions. I also wrote Part 28 to go through all the enhancements added over the years!

Flexibility to the rescue? Not so fast!

Why would I sit on my hands if I get unlucky in (early) retirement and my portfolio melts down year after year? If you stubbornly withdraw that same initial amount plus inflation adjustments, the way it’s modeled in the Trinity Study, it’s neither psychologically sustainable nor is it financially sound or mathematically optimal. Rather, at some point, everyone would change course: either try to generate some supplemental income or consume less for a while (or a combination of the two). Flexibility is often sold as the panacea against Sequence Risk. I’m certainly not recommending everyone to be inflexible but I’d argue that flexibility is often overrated:

Alleviate Sequence Risk through Dynamic Asset Allocation!

How about using a margin loan to fund your retirement to avoid liquidating assets at an inopportune time? Part 49 deals with that.

Special Topics

Mortgages and (early) retirement don’t mix! In Part 21 I go through my rationale for paying off the mortgage before retirement: Having a fixed, inflexible payment like a mortgage is poison from a Sequence Risk perspective!

Related to the “Yield Shield,” in Part 40 I look at how your retirement budget would have looked like if we had simply lived off the dividends of an S&P 500 equity portfolio without ever touching the principal. For most retirees, this will not be a viable hedge against Sequence Risk.

How does Rental Real Estate fit into early retirement planning? How do we model safe withdrawal and safe consumption rates with a real estate portfolio? See Part 36 of the Series!

Taxes

Summary and Suggestions

Withdrawing money from your nest egg is a lot more complicated than the “simple math” and “simple path” to accumulating assets. I can’t change that. But if you spend 10-15 years saving diligently to invest six-figure or even seven-figure sums, it may also be a wise “investment” to spend a few hours to familiarize yourself with the challenges of withdrawal strategies. Depending on where you are in your FIRE journey and your personal preferences I’d suggest proceeding as follows:

Just for your reference: all posts in chronological order

Comments or questions?

Feel free to leave comments and suggestions here or at one of the specific SWR posts. I will get a notification and will try to respond, usually within a week. Also, comments with up to two external links are allowed. More external links might cause your comment to land in the spam box! 🙂 Looking forward to your feedback!

Источник

Жизнь с капитала для самсебепенсионеров. Почему 4%? что такое SWR?

Тема на самом деле охватывает не только молодых (те самые на пенсию в 25) пенсионеров, а всех, кто планирует перестать работать хотя бы в 65. Но при этом либо не рассчитывает на государственное пенсионное обеспечение, либо оно даже в сладких снах не будет замещать всех необходимых расходов. Таких большинство по всему миру, коэффициент замещения среднего дохода в 40% считается хорошим результатом даже в процветающих странах. У нас же на такой коэффицент могут рассчитывать только люди с белым доходом тысяч до 40 рублей в сегодняшних деньгах. Если вы зарабатываете сегодняшние тысяч 80, то это дай бог будет 30%. А если больше сотни, то там есть потолок пенсионных прав (тысяч 40-45) и нужно что-то делать самому.

Вроде это понимают даже смартлабовцы 😉

Наверное кто-то слышал про правило 4%. Снимаем значит по 4% от портфеля и капитал никогда не кончится. Эта же цифра называется SWR (Safe Withdrawal Rate) — безопасная ставка снятия.

Тут надо пояснить, что на самом деле имеется ввиду.

1. Снимаем не 4% (вернее вот эту ставку SWR) от остатков портфеля, а SWR на момент начала жизни на капитал, то есть сумма не плавает с капиталом.
2. Снимаемые средства индексируются на инфляцию.
3. Безопасная (Safe) не значит, что деньги никогда не кончатся, это значит, что их хватит на 30 лет (то есть это может быть не совсем про молодых пенсионеров)
4. Почему 4%? В общем по статистике американского рынка за 100+ лет, так получилось, что если бы мы взяли эту самую SWR равной 4%, начиная с любого месяца за эти годы и инвестировали бы эти средства в «стандартный» портфель акциии/облигации, то вероятность нарваться на случай, когда 4% не хватит ничтожна.
5. Посчитали эти закономерности в США, то есть отталкиваясь от реалий рынка акций/облигаций США, по другим такой истории нет, чтобы посчитать.

Что есть стандартный портфель?
Ну например акции/облигации 60/40, 70/30. При SWR 4%, шанс выйти на пенсию в такой месяц, когда вам бы не хватило денег на 30 лет — 0.12% при 70/30 и 0.46% при 60/40. SWR 3.95% хватило бы во всех случаях

Ну то есть за всю историю с 1871 года акций/облигаций США, накопив миллион долларов, вы бы смогли снимать в год 37500, индексировать эту сумму на инфляцию каждый год и во всех случаях, вам бы хватило, а в большинстве, у вас бы осталось.

Кстати, если снимать 50000 в год, то уже в 20% случаев деньги бы до истечения 30 лет не дожили бы.

А что же молодые? Тем, кто собрался на пенсию в 35 никак нельзя на 30 лет считать. Посчитаем 50, там все не сильно хуже, 3.5% хватает всегда (худший случай 3.52%).

Тут пора уже раскрыть источник. Есть такой известный в кругах ранних пенсионеров блог ERN (https://earlyretirementnow.com/), там есть замечательный гуглшит, где всё это можно посчитать. Там можно поставить свои соотношения акций, облигаций, добавить золотишка с кэшом. Не забудьте скопировать гуглшит себе для этих операций.

Здесь у нас расчет на 70/30 со сроком 30 лет

Вот график вероятности провала при разных ставках изъятия на 30 лет. На 50 уже поняли, как самостоятельно смотреть.

А теперь картинки провалов и успехов с capital-gain.ru/app/#/backtest (аналог portfoliovisualizer со своими плюшками и недостатками)

Если мы вышли на пенсию перед крахом доткомов не только в акциях, то все более менее. В акциях за 20 лет почти ничего не осталось.

Но в перед суровыми 70ми (стагфляция в США) на пенсию с завышенными ожиданиями было выходить крайне опасно. Через 20 с небольшим лет, все портфели кончились (первая картинка). Снизим изъятие до 3.5% и до 30 лет дотянем (вторая картинка). Тут надо понимать, что в бэктестере немного другие ряды используются, чем в калькуляторе, поэтмоу немного SWR отличаются, но выводы подтверждаются.

А вот как можно выйти на пенсию удачно и оставить внукам капитал в 9-10 раз больше своего пенсионного (причем за вычетом инфляции)

В общем те, кто не знал, сколько вам надо, начинайте прикидывать. Для выхода на пенсию нужно скопить минимум 25 годовых расходов, с учетом ужасных условий по облигациям в резервных валютах сейчас, наверно лучше 30.

Ну и да, всё может измениться и вы убьете свой миллион долларов за 10 лет, снимая по 40 штук. Никто ничего не обещал.
Не надо вкладывать в акции и облигации одной страны, всякое бывает. Комиссии тоже не учтены.

Источник