Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
David Blanchett and Michael Finke

Retirement Planning > Spending in Retirement > Income Planning

Supernerds: Ramsey’s Been Wrong on Retirement Income for a Decade, but It Matters More Today

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Late-career Americans and those already in retirement rely more on private savings and tax-advantaged retirement accounts than past generations who benefited from greater access to guaranteed pensions, and that means the stakes are incredibly high when it comes to educating the public about the risks associated with retirement income planning.

By following bad advice about the level of spending that is safe or what level of investment returns one should expect during life after work, otherwise well-prepared Americans can see a lifetime of diligent savings evaporate surprisingly quickly. With questions looming about the health of Social Security and the potential for future benefit cuts, it’s all too easy to imagine how retirement could turn from a dream to a nightmare for the unwary.

This was the core message shared by a trio of well-known retirement income researchers on a recent episode of the Rational Reminder podcast, hosted by Benjamin Felix and Cameron Passmore at PWL Capital. According to Michael Finke, David Blanchett and Wade Pfau, Americans desperately need greater insight and more support from service providers and financial professionals when it comes to structuring retirement income portfolios and balancing spending, investment returns and the option to buy guaranteed annuities.

Against this backdrop, they said it is equal parts disappointing and frustrating to see popular financial media figures such as Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman misconstrue some of the most important income planning concepts — especially their apparent tendency to focus on arithmetic rather than geometric return assumptions in their broad retirement planning discussions. This may sound like an arcane distinction, they admitted, but the potential negative effect on real investors is profound.

Ramsey has been giving bad retirement spending advice for “like a decade,” Finke said, and researchers have been rebutting him for years. But the professor said what fueled the response this time was Ramsey’s “aggressive negativity.”

In the now-infamous podcast episode, Ramsey recommended an 8% starting withdrawal rate and dismissed researchers touting more conservative guidelines as “supernerds” and “goobers” who “live in their mother’s basement with a calculator.”

Finke called it “next-level hate on good advice.”

Ultimately, the researchers warned, the risk that Americans will follow bad retirement advice is all too real and all too important for professional financial advisors to ignore, especially given the fact that Ramsey himself has sought to discredit their work.

Such advice can not only result in overspending, Blanchett said, but often leads people to overlook the potential to use flexible spending strategies that respond in a smart way to one’s actual lived experience in retirement — something the researchers all agreed is incredibly important for “truly safe spending.”

What Ramsey Gets Wrong

As the researchers discussed, the appeal of the “Ramsey approach” is its apparent simplicity.

“The idea is that, if you are making 12% returns annually, and if inflation for the last 80 years was 4% on average, that leaves you 8% to spend from the portfolio every year without risking depleting the balance,” Pfau explained. “It’s so attractive because, apparently, you’ll never even have to dip you’re your original principal. It sounds wonderful, but unfortunately, this math is wrong.”

The problem, as noted, is that Ramsey doesn’t appear to grasp the differences between geometric returns (what a person actually earns in an investment) and arithmetic returns (the simple average return seen over time).

“In real life, market volatility and spending from the portfolio reduce the growth rate of assets compared to just a simple calculation of the historical average return,” Pfau said. “People also have to pay investment fees, and he also doesn’t appreciate how a 100% stock portfolio increases sequence of return risk.”

According to the researchers, a retiree who actually listened to Ramsey and followed an 8% withdrawal rule while holding a four-fund stock portfolio in the 2000s, for example, would have run out of money in as little as 13 years.

“To be clear, some investors do get really lucky,” Blanchett pointed out. “Some investors retire into a fantastic bull market and their investments go up 10% or 20% per year early in retirement. If that happens, you’re in great shape and you can probably spend this much or more. The problem is that it doesn’t always happen.”

Sequence of Returns Risk Is Fundamental

While it can be a challenging topic to teach clients, the researchers agreed, the issue of sequence of returns risk is incredibly important (and potentially powerful) in the planning effort. As Pfau put it, sequence of returns risk is the “heart of what makes income planning different and far more complex than accumulation.”

Defined in the most basic terms, “sequence of returns risk” refers to the fact that the order and timing of poor investment returns can have a major impact on how long an individual’s retirement savings last. As Pfau explained, the sequence of returns doesn’t really matter when there are no cash flows in and out of a portfolio — even when there is extreme volatility. The picture changes entirely, however, when one must factor in systematic withdrawals from the portfolio, whether 4% per year, 8% or any other number.

Sequence risk is especially problematic when a multi-year string of bad returns occurs during the early retirement period. The combination of lower returns and withdrawals quickly adds up to something significant and the portfolio in the aggregate starts to get winnowed down, such that great returns in the future don’t mean nearly as much.

Pfau noted that using real-world examples can help clients see what is really going on here. For example, the period in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a tough time to retire. Inflation ran rampant, and the S&P 500 scored several significantly negative years in that period. Returns were particularly poor in 1966, 1969, 1973 and 1974.

Notably, after 1982, or about halfway through the 30-year retirement that started in 1966, the markets actually did quite well, Pfau observed. The key takeaway is that, even though the average return to a portfolio was decent between 1966 and 1995, the sequence of returns was difficult for retirees to deal with.

By the time a retiree hit 1982, their portfolio had essentially been decimated because of the need to sell assets to generate income while prices were significantly depressed. Only by limiting their spending to 4% per year from the start of the retirement period could the 1966 retiree reliably avoid running short of funds. Conversely, 1982 was actually an amazing year to retire, Pfau explained, and a retiree could spend something close to 10% and it would have been safe.

“It’s really striking because the best-case scenario in history actually begins halfway through the worst-case scenario in history, if you’re using historical data in the analysis,” Pfau said. “It’s all about the trajectory you are on. Unfortunately, if you take that hit early on, you don’t really get to participate in the recovery.”

Annuities Have Entered the Chat

The researchers discussed the importance of advisors and clients at least considering the potential use of annuities.

To begin with, they should work to dispel the outdated idea of there being a sharp tradeoff between meeting a spending goal versus not being able to provide a legacy, they said.

With the conversation around annuities, it’s important to remember it’s not all or nothing, Pfau said. It’s not about putting everything in the annuity or putting everything in investments. Instead, there are different viable approaches to retirement, whether it’s with a total return investing strategy, a bucketing strategy or a strategy that might use guarantees to fill an income gap.

For instance, an annuity could be used to build a protected income floor and create a framework for investing more aggressively toward more discretionary goals. In such cases, if the client is getting an annuity for income purposes, they might be best off by thinking about the annuity as a de facto fixed income asset class exposure in their overall portfolio. In other words, it’s important to recognize that balance and use a portion of the bond portfolio to buy the annuity — and to reflect that in future portfolio rebalancing.

Pfau added that if an investor is selling stocks to purchase an annuity, they might indeed be sacrificing the opportunity to build a legacy for their heirs. Selling bonds to fund the annuity purchase, on the other hand, allows them to keep the overall stock allocation the same for their household balance sheet.

The researchers also addressed some of the many academic studies on annuities, especially those that have found annuities to be useful from the perspective of consumption smoothing, both pre- and post-retirement. That is, annuities can lead to a smoother income path because they provide more certainty of income.

Pictured: David Blanchett, left, and Michael Finke


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.