I was honored to speak alongside some industry heavyweights at AAII’s 2021 virtual conference. My topic was Using Income Annuities in Retirement. Here is a link to my (hour long!) presentation: https://lnkd.in/ehxXxScQ
Note: For those who are interested, I provided a link to the conference in the YouTube video description.
Readers interested in this topic may also want to read my other articles on annuities and income:
I spent some time on Google, but could not ascertain the origins of the term fixed income. Presumably, it was just a simple description given to investments where all of the related cash flows were dictated per contractual obligation. For example, this could be something as simple as a government bond that pays fixed coupons and returns the principal at maturity. However, the term fixed income has now come to describe pretty much any investment obligated to pay a pre-specified stream of cash flows – some of which are more complex (e.g., mortgage-backed securities).
Brushing some details under the rug (e.g., some bonds can be called), fixed income investments effectively allow investors to purchase future cash flows with a high degree of certainty.[1] However, it is important to note this degree of certainty only applies when the investments are held to maturity.
If an investment is sold before it matures, the sales proceeds will naturally be at the mercy of the market. Other investors will take into account the remainder of the cash flows to be paid and discount them via relevant interest rates. Thus, in the case where fixed income investments are not held to maturity, much of the certainty can be lost.
Without doubt, the high turnover of many bond funds can naturally destroy this essence of fixed income. Moreover, advocates of total return investing also seem to disregard the inherent stability of contractual cash flows as they put portfolio income right back into the market even when the ultimate goal is income.
This article attempts to restore this sanctity of fixed income. In particular, I advocate for the design and utilization of fixed cash flows in the context of asset-liability management (ALM) – thereby mitigating, if not avoiding, market volatility. While relevant to other investment mandates (e.g., private foundations with cash flow liabilities), I discuss this notion in the context of retirement income.
I use bond ladders and income annuities to highlight some potential benefits of this approach. In addition to potential cost and tax savings, the math behind this approach (i.e., time value of money) is much simpler than many of the statistical models used for portfolio management. Accordingly, I believe this approach can facilitate greater understanding and peace of mind for many investors. Retirement income is one natural application for this strategy. However, it can also be helpful in estate planning for blended families and other situations where one wishes to manage multiple beneficiaries’ claims to income and principal.
Note: Readers interested in this topic may also like to read an earlier article I wrote (Destroying Stable Income Streams) that focuses on a similar topic, but primarily in the context of dividends.
| Figure 1: 10-year bond cash flows vs IEF price[2]
Source: Aaron Brask Capital |
Figure 2: Dividend cash flows vs market price (VIG)
|
|---|
| Note: This article focuses on the context of retirement income, but it is worth noting the ideas are also relevant to other investment applications where one is tasked with addressing liabilities in the form of future outgoing cash flows (e.g., pensions, endowments, private foundations, etc.). |
|---|
When it comes to investment strategies for retirement (and almost any other application), most individual and professional practitioners have adopted an approach based on total return investing and modern portfolio theory (MPT). So the natural income from the portfolio (e.g., dividends and interest) is typically reinvested and income required for spending is chiseled off from the portfolio as needed.
Portfolio volatility presents a risk as it can jeopardize one’s financial security in retirement by increasing the probability of running out of money (i.e., potentially less money to chisel from). For example, retirees may still need to withdraw from their portfolios during market declines and this would result in forced selling at depressed prices. Of course, conservative financial planning should allow for such situations and be able to withstand such scenarios.
This typically results in constructing a diversified portfolio that will offer an attractive balance of growth potential and risk. If we confine ourselves to a world with just stocks and bonds (for the sake of simplicity), then the idea would be for stocks to generate sufficient long term growth to help combat inflation or generate real returns[3] while bonds might be regarded as a diversifying asset. As long as the bond allocation keeps up with inflation and tends to zig when stocks zag, many investors are content to maintain significant bond allocations in order to balance risk in their portfolios.
| Side note: Why do bonds typically exhibit lower returns and less volatility than stocks?
On the one hand, stocks are effectively perpetual securities and their dividends are not guaranteed. On the other hand, bonds ultimately mature and offer contractually guaranteed cash flows. Put simply, bonds offer more certainty than stocks. Thus, it is unsurprising stock prices tend to be more volatile than bond prices and investors label bonds as the safer investment. Investment theory indicates higher returns are the reward for higher risk – assuming that risk is systemic and cannot be diversified away. In the US, this has certainly been the case historically with stocks handily outperforming bonds over the long run. So conventional wisdom holds that stocks should have higher expected returns than bonds over longer periods since they are more volatile. This risk-based argument is presented from the investor’s perspective. What is less discussed is the flipside: the issuer perspective. That is, what about the perspective of the corporate or government issuers of securities? Let us take a corporation seeking to raise capital as an example. From their vantage point, issuing equity can be attractive in the sense that it does not impose any contractual payments (dividends, if any, can be skipped). However, if they issue a bond, then they will be obligated to make interest payments and repay the principal at maturity. In this light, issuing equity imposes less financial constraint and may be viewed as a favorable option. Accordingly, they may be encouraged to issue equity rather than bonds. In turn, this could tip the scales of supply in demand in such a way to make stocks cheaper and more conducive to higher returns. |
The bottom line is that market risk is critical in the context of retirement planning. So the lower volatility and low to negative correlations with stocks can make bonds useful in maintaining a diversified portfolio. However, viewing bonds only through the lens of market prices ignores the inherent stability they can provide in terms of generating specific cash flows with little to no uncertainty[4] (i.e., the same attribute that likely makes them less volatile).
Let us take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Consider a retiree who wants to ensure their portfolio will provide adequate income as long as they may live. A portion of this income will likely come from their fixed income allocation. So they purchase bonds or bond funds, but only to observe them as squiggly lines on charts that may later be converted to cash. In other words, they purchase future streams of cash that could be used for retirement spending, but ignore those stable cash flows, reinvest them, and end up at the mercy of the market when they want to extract those funds down the road.
Figure 3: Roundabout way to create future cash flows
 |
|---|
Source: Aaron Brask Capital
This seems a rather roundabout way of using bonds when the ultimate goal is income. Bonds and, more generally, fixed income investments already generate specific cash flows that are independent market risk when held to maturity. In my view, this is the real sanctity of fixed income investing. However, this notion seems to have been lost with many of the contemporary investment strategies that do not specifically align assets with liabilities comprised of future outgoing cash flows.
While the term fixed income is still widely used to describe various investments, it has lost the essence of its literal meaning. Hence this article and my goal to restore this sanctity of fixed income. The following sections discuss two specific tools investors can use to generate fixed cash flows and manage relevant risks: bond ladders and income annuities. While I touch on some of the potential cost and tax savings, I believe the greatest benefit is simplicity. In my experience working with many investors over the years, I find a greater understanding of one’s financial plan often facilitates the most peace of mind – regardless of the potential monetary benefits.
A bond ladder is basically a series of bonds spaced out over a specified time period (e.g., five, 10, or 20 years) and held to maturity. As time passes, each bond’s time to maturity decreases. In particular, the proceeds from each maturing bond are used to purchase a longer term bond to restore the original length of the ladder.
Figure 4: N-year bond ladder illustration
  |
Source: Aaron Brask Capital
For example, let us consider a 10-year bond ladder comprised of 10 bonds – one for each year. After one year passes, the first one-year bond matures and the 10-year bond is now a nine-year bond. So the proceeds from the maturing bond are used to purchase another 10-year bond and we are back to a 10-year bond ladder again.
I may have brushed some of the details under the rug (e.g., callable bonds and defaults), but this describes the general approach. The process is simple and eliminates unnecessary turnover from any jockeying around. There are basically two moving parts: how long of a time period to use and how far to space bond maturities within the ladder. So let us consider what to consider when deciding how to structure a bond ladder.
I find the main decision is how long to structure a ladder. Several factors are relevant here. In an environment with a typical upward sloping yield curve, longer ladders will naturally increase the yield. At the same time, this will also likely increase the volatility of the ladder’s market value and vulnerability to inflation. While many people consider volatility synonymous with risk, this could actually improve a ladder’s ability to diversify other positions (e.g., allocations to stocks).
Shorter bond ladders basically exhibit the opposite attributes. They generally have lower yields, are less volatile, and less susceptible to inflation. Indeed, as each year passes, shorter ladders would reinvest a larger proportion of their total capital (1 out of N bonds) and more quickly benefit from the presumably higher rates.
Figure 5: Bond ladder attributes
We could take this example to the extreme by considering a bond ladder with zero length. That is, the capital would simply be invested at overnight rates (like a savings account). On the one hand, it would not earn any term premium.[5] On the other hand, it could instantly benefit from any higher rates due to inflation. This train of thought could be useful for retirees where inflation is a critical risk.Source: Aaron Brask Capital
Of course, one could use different types of bond funds (long- vs short-term) to manage the above risks. However, I find the simplicity and passive nature of bond ladders attractive – especially when focusing on the income profile and its relationship with inflation. In my experience, both active and passive bond funds tend to have excessively high turnover. This jockeying around from one bond to another does not necessarily lead to any reliable benefits, but can impose additional fees and trigger sporadic capital gains.
Another application for bond ladders is one in which the actual bond principal is used for consumption. For example, consider a couple with one child entering college now and another starting four years down the road. In this case, they may wish to set aside funds to cover tuitions for the next, say, eight years. In this case, it is not just the bond income that is relevant as the principal will be spent as well. One might even use certificates of deposit (CDs) that accrue or fixed annuities,[6] but do not pay any interest.
Retirees may also set up bond ladders with the intention of spending the principal as bonds and CDs mature. The obvious challenge in this scenario is not knowing how long to they will live. If they build a bond ladder out to their (actuarial) life expectancy, then they may live longer than average and have no more bonds maturing to fund their retirement. One solution is to plan for a reasonably long lifespan. However, this requires one of two things:
On an individual basis, each retiree may effectively be forced to plan for the ‘worst-case’ scenario – living longer. For the lucky few that live like cockroaches, they will be happy they planned conservatively. For the majority who live shorter, average, or slightly above average lifespans, this conservative approach will result in their retirements being overfunded (only known in hindsight). Accordingly, this approach results in significant overfunding at the aggregate level – a natural byproduct of each individual’s desire to avoid running out of money. The income annuity products in the next section directly address this issue.
Simply put, an income annuity is a product offered by insurance companies whereby they allow individuals (or couples) to purchase income that is guaranteed to last as long as they live (e.g., throughout retirement). The amount of income relative to the purchase price is determined by a combination of actuarial (i.e., life expectancy) and market factors (i.e., interest rates). As of my writing, for example, a 70 year old male can purchase $1,443 in guaranteed monthly income for the rest of his life for $250,000. On an annual basis, this represents a payout of approximately 7%.[7]
| Side note: Annuities are bad, aren’t they?
Annuities have rightfully earned a negative stigma from the agents pushing more expensive products with higher commissions. While I have written extensively on the drawbacks of variable annuities (e.g., excessive fees and potential tax issues), I find income annuities to be a very efficient tool for retirement planning. Unlike their complicated variable cousins, income annuities are very simple. This simplicity makes it easier for insurance companies to manage their risk. In theory, this should help to reduce their costs. Moreover, simplicity also makes it much easier for investors and independent agents (like myself) to compare apples with apples, shop around, and get the best rate. This comparison shopping imposes additional gravity on income annuity prices from competition. In my experience, income annuities have become more competitively priced in recent years and this makes them an attractive option for many retirees. I built my own calculator to assess the implied costs embedded in income annuities for my clients, but online calculators are also available for those who know what they are doing (one example here). David Blanchett (Morningstar Investment Management), Michael S. Finke (The American College), and Branislav Nikolic (York University – Department of Mathematics and Statistics) published a recent article that corroborates my experience. Indeed, when normalizing for interest rates, they find the trend for income annuity prices was lower over the seven-year period ending in August 2020. In another article, Blanchett and Finke found that the rates offered by some multi-year guaranteed annuities (MYGAs) were more attractive than those with CDs, government/treasury bonds, and corporate bonds. |
Figure 6: Example income annuity illustration
As I highlighted in the previous section, individual investors generally cannot afford to run the risk of assuming they will only live to their actuarial life expectancy. Accordingly, they often play it safe by allocating enough money to fund retirement for a period that is significantly longer than their true life expectancy. So this results in overfunding at the aggregate level. This is where insurance companies can be helpful.Source: Aaron Brask Capital
Unlike market volatility, actuarial risks such as lifespans are very predictable when averaged across large groups of people. By pooling risks across many annuity customers, insurance companies can effectively net out the longevity risks and price guaranteed lifetime income based on the average life expectancy. For individuals who would otherwise have to plan well beyond their life expectancy to be safe, pooling risk via an income annuity could allow them to free up capital or purchase a higher level of income per year.
For example, consider a 65 year old man with a life expectancy of 18 years (i.e., expected to live to 83 years old) deciding between a bond ladder and an annuity. Assuming the same level of annual cash flows, constructing a bond ladder out to age 90 would cost significantly more than an annuity based off of a life expectancy of 83. Indeed, the bond ladder would require funding 25 years (90 – 65) of cash flows whereas the annuity price would only reflect the average of 18 years. Ignoring the time value of money, the bond ladder would require approximately 39% (25÷18-1) more capital for the same level of cash flows.
Figure 7 below illustrates the expected mortality rates for 65 year old males and females. As one might expect, very few people are expected to die early on, most will likely live to right around their actuarial life expectancy, and increasingly fewer will be expected to live each year further out. With a large enough group of income annuity purchasers, the shapes of these curves would directly reflect the actual outgoing cash flows. So an insurance company could purchase fixed income investments to provide for that cash flows.[8]
While insurance companies are in business to earn a profit, any additional expense (above and beyond the actuarial fair price) paid by income annuity purchases would likely be significantly less than what it would cost for them to secure their own income through age 90, 100, or beyond – whatever age required to ensure the likelihood of running out of money was de minimis. The market jargon used to describe this averaging phenomenon is mortality credits. That is, income annuity clients who live longer effectively receive credits from those who live shorter lifespans.
Figure 7: Distribution of mortality rates
 |
|---|
Source: Social Security Administration (2017 period life table)
Mortality credits alone can make income annuities an attractive tool for many retirees. However, I also like to present income annuities from another perspective. Given the current market environment where both interest rates and dividend yields are so low, most retirees will not be able to live off the natural income from their portfolios (i.e., dividends and interest). Accordingly, they will have to dip into principal to fund their retirement.
Once one acknowledges principal will be sold over the course of their retirement, they have a choice. One the one hand, they can wait and chisel as needed down the road. Of course, this leaves future income at the mercy of the market. Moreover, each time one chisels away from their portfolio, it will naturally reduce the dividend and/or interest income paid out in subsequent years. With less income, the shortfall could increase and require chiseling away even more principal. This can be a slippery slope.
On the other hand, one way to mitigate this risk could be to allocate a portion of one’s fixed income investments to a bond ladder or income annuity. Rather than being at the mercy of the bond market when chiseling off money for spending, an income annuity effectively allows one to pre-chisel income in advance – effectively eliminating the market risk for this stream of income.
In addition to fees (discussed in the shaded side note box above), another concern that periodically comes up is what would happen if one purchased an income annuity, but only ended up living a short period. If one paid a significant sum upfront for an income annuity, but only received a few payments in return, it would undoubtedly be negative economic outcome (and personal tragedy). However, most insurance companies will guarantee a 100% return of premium in exchange for reduction in payout. This is effectively a money-back guarantee – something most conservative bond funds cannot even offer. Given the low interest rate environment we are currently in, I find this option provides additional peace of mind – especially where children or other legacy concerns are present.
One approach many people choose is to allocate just enough to an income annuity to cover their basic necessities. More generally, I like to integrate income annuities into a broader plan for retirement income that complements the use of other assets and sources of income while tending to the potential risks that could jeopardize retirement security (inflation, healthcare needs, etc.). In addition to being able to provide guaranteed income, options like the cash refund feature described above, the ability to structure income via joint and survivor payouts for couples, and other features can make income annuities a versatile tool for retirement planning. This versatility can be especially useful for minimizing tax impact with retirement. I do not elaborate on the taxes here, but I wrote another article on precisely that topic: Optimizing Tax Benefits with Annuities.
Without doubt, the topic of annuities is often polarizing and many of the stigmas attached to them are for good reason. Having worked with individuals and families over the last decade, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly sides – including, but not limited to misleading sales pitches, excessively high commissions, tax inefficiencies, and poor performance. In other words, the standard of care under which annuity and insurance products are sold appears to fall short of the fiduciary standard.
I like to think my approach is different. While I uphold a fiduciary standard in all of my dealings with clients, I believe my PhD in mathematical finance, actuarial background, and Wall Street experience advising insurance companies make my perspectives on planning, investments, annuities, and life insurance truly unique. Moreover, I offer my clients multiple options: hourly/fixed-fee financial planning services, traditional fee-based portfolio management services, and income annuities (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive). By highlighting the risks, costs, and performance of each approach, I view my role as educating, guiding, and executing where applicable.
Put simply, I find there can be immense value in pre-chiseling income upfront via bond and CD ladders or income annuities. By combining this guaranteed income with other sources of income (social security, dividends, etc.), I can often structure portfolios in such a way to generate sufficient income naturally. I may be shooting myself in the foot to some degree, but I find this type of upfront planning can mitigate, if not eliminate, the need for ongoing portfolio management. As a result, this can significantly reduce both costs and taxes in many cases – thus allowing clients to spend more or leave larger legacies to their heirs.
Notwithstanding these benefits, I find the biggest benefit of this strategy is its simplicity. This building blocks approach to income is very intuitive and I find clients just get it. While this article focused on retirement income, this approach can also be used with trust planning for blended families and other situations where delineating income and principal is helpful.
I believe the true sanctity of fixed income lies in the ability to purchase specific cash flows in the future with precision and certainty. However, I believe this has become a lost art and the phrase fixed income has lost its literal meaning.
The primary benefit of fixed income assets is now seemingly derived from market prices being less volatile than or less correlated to other asset classes. Indeed, many market practitioners focus on modern portfolio theory and total return investing where all portfolio income, regardless of how robust or certain it may be, is indistinguishable from capital appreciation.
This article highlighted how we could restore the sanctity of fixed income via examples with bond ladders and income annuities. In particular, I highlighted the context of retirement income. Regardless of whether one is already retired or not, the focus of saving and investing ultimately becomes generating adequate income during retirement[9]. In this context, I believe that purchasing future cash flows with certainty can be immensely helpful.
For many, this approach may not meaningfully alter their allocations or economic exposures. If retirees were to look inside bond funds they own, then many might find the cash flows of the bonds they already own create a ladder of future cash flows they could use for retirement income planning. However, bond funds have notoriously high turnover and many of those bonds will not be held to maturity. As a result, many of those cash flows will be sold before they end up in the hands of investors who could use them.
Other articles that may be of interest:
Disclaimer
The stakes are high when it comes to retirement income. Unfortunately, salesmanship and conflicts of interest are rampant in the financial services industry. In most cases, the investment advice you receive will be a direct result of the type of financial professional you speak with (e.g., broker vs advisor vs insurance agent or a combination thereof). The purpose of this post is to help retirees and other investors see through the smoke and mirrors and make informed decisions in the context of generating retirement income.
My goal here is to provide a high-level overview of the primary options available to generate retirement income – not to go into the granular details. I believe the information below should be enough to help you narrow down your choices so you can start exploring and refining the most appropriate options.
Note: This post only discusses retirement income, but it is also important to make sure your plan is tax-efficient and minimize the likelihood or impact of unexpected events that could jeopardize your financial security. One should conduct more comprehensive planning to address these issues.
Below I identify what I believe are the four primary strategies for investors to use their savings to generate retirement income. Each approach has pros and cons in terms of security, level of income, fees, liquidity, legacy goals (e.g., heirs or charities), etc. Each person naturally has unique perspectives, experiences, preferences, and priorities. So there is no one-size-fits-all answer. However, I suspect the attributes I highlight below can help you narrow down your choices.
Note: I left out the ‘pillowcase’ option whereby one could simply stash their cash in their pillow or bank account and take money out as they need. The math behind this situation is relatively simple (e.g., spending a $100,000 per year for 40 years requires $4 million). However, this approach is still subject to the risks related to inflation and longer than expected longevity (i.e., running out of money) – two specific concerns I address below.
The first option is to buy a portfolio of stocks and bonds and then live off the income they provide – dividends and interest. The goal here is to live off the natural income streams these assets throw off without dipping into the principal. In addition to simplifying one’s income strategy, this can also reduce one’s dependency on market price performance.
Note: In my experience, the stability of dividend income surprises most people. I suspect many assume dividends are volatile because market prices are. However, this is not necessarily the case as I discuss in my Destroying Steady Income article.
The obvious challenge here is having enough wealth to generate the income you need. Given the current low rates of interest and dividends (as of September 2016, dividend and bond yields are in the range of 2-3%), this requires savings on the order of 30-50x your annual spending budget. If your annual expenses are, say, $100,000, then you will need approximately $3-5 million to comfortably rely on dividends and interest without accessing the principal (absent other sources of income).
Of course, real estate and other income-generating investments can work too. Rental yields from real estate, for example, are typically higher (perhaps due to the lack of liquidity, potential headaches involved, or slower growth rates relative to stocks). Real estate transactions typically take weeks or months and involve significant transaction (e.g., closing) costs. Moreover, maintaining a property or dealing with tenants might be too much for many to handle.
Notwithstanding these potential issues, it is possible to find real estate investments generating reliable yields of 4% or higher. Of course, real estate investments can be leveraged to boost the yields even higher (e.g., upper single digits). In this case, the quality of the cash flows generated by the properties is paramount. Whether you own the property yourself or through another party (e.g., manager or fund) with leverage, you do not want to miss an interest payment or your investment could evaporate.
The bottom line: Suffice to say, not many folks fall into the category of being able to live off their dividends and interest alone. However, you need not despair. Option #4 below (Structured Investment Income) provides a blueprint for how to structure a similar solution for income.
Building a balanced portfolio (e.g., 60% stocks and 40% bonds) and chiseling off principal is probably the most popular approach to generating income for retirement. The idea is to estimate how much one can safely withdraw without jeopardizing financial security down the road – hence the safe withdrawal rate (SWR) label.
William Bengen, an MIT rocket scientist who went into financial planning, is credited with the seminal research on the topic of SWR income strategies. He ran historical simulations and illustrated the interplay between portfolio allocations, SWRs, and wealth depletion. He is also credited with coming up with the 4% rule. This rule of thumb suggests investors with balanced portfolios should be able to withdraw 4% of the original balance in the first year and then the same amount adjusted by inflation each year thereafter. In particular, his simulations indicated this strategy very rarely resulted in wealth depletion.
In my view, there are two issues with SWR strategies. The first issue is market dependence. No matter how many simulations or statistical analyses you run, markets may not behave the way they have in the past or how your simulations assume they will. I find this notion to be discomforting since past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance.
The second issue I identify with SWR strategies relates to the fees. I see many instances where investors are paying investment advisors to execute these strategies. For example, consider a 1% advisor fee and a withdrawal rate around the 4% rule of thumb. You would effectively be sharing a quarter of your retirement with your advisor.
Truth be told, SWR strategies are fairly straightforward to execute once they have been set up. All one has to do is periodically rebalance the portfolio to match the specified allocations and generate the desired income. Indeed, there are now many robo-advisors who do this for low or no cost. This is not to say advisors cannot add value in other ways.
For example, I believe it is important to tactically alter the allocations to reflect different market conditions. Value-adding strategies like this can earn an advisor’s fee many times over. However, this is not the norm for most advisors who employ a reactive rebalancing process based on what markets have already done.
The above SWR approach clearly involves a significant degree of market risk. Moreover, standard investments are not aware of your lifespan. One way to address these risks is to purchase products which guarantee income as long as you live. We call these products annuities and only insurance companies can sell them (since they are institutions that manage longevity risk). Without doubt, guaranteed income is a highly attractive and desirable feature.
Note: Insurance companies can run into trouble too as many did during the financial crisis. However, they are highly regulated and many states effectively step in to guarantee annuity products if carriers have financial issues. In my view, this makes the risk of defaulting on their guaranteed payments minimal.
Another benefit annuity products can offer is tax-deferral. In particular, investments can grow and one can make changes to the underlying portfolios without triggering capital gains. In general, tax-deferral can provide immense benefits. However, the net earnings are ultimately taxed as income tax (which is generally much higher than capital gains rates) when the owner eventually withdraws those funds. This is a significant issue in taxable accounts.
Without doubt, income that is guaranteed to last throughout one’s lifetime and tax-deferral are very desirable in the eyes of risk-averse investors looking to secure their financial well-being. So insurance agents are able to make very compelling marketing pitches. However, it is important to weigh the benefits with the associated costs and constraints.
Some annuities (e.g., variable annuities) have fees as high as 4% or more per year and may involve lockups or surrender periods whereby one cannot sell their annuity for several years without paying significant penalties. Suffice to say, people selling annuities do not always focus on these items.
Annuities are unique in being able to make guarantees related to income and longevity. However, annuity salespeople often like to sell the higher fee products because they get bigger commissions. At the end of the day, you have to work out the math and balance the risks to see how they compare to other income strategies. For example, fixed annuities strip out many of the bells and whistles to isolate the core benefits of lifelong income and tax-deferral. As a result, these products typically have much lower costs than their variable annuity cousins.
[accordions]
[accordion title=”Learn more about annuities”]
I have had extensive experience analyzing annuities on both the consumer side working with individual investors and (earlier in my career) on behalf of insurance companies looking to hedge their annuity businesses. In my experience, the fees most (but not all) of these products charge outweigh the benefits they provide. These products involve much financial engineering, so the math is often difficult to untangle. However, the basic logic is straightforward.
An insurance company is an intermediary between you and the market. They provide a service (aggregating and hedging risk) which costs them money and then they tack on their profits on top of those costs. They must also educate and incentivize (via commissions) armies of salespeople to sell their products – a costly endeavor to be sure. At the end of the day, all of these costs add up and ultimately come out the pockets of people who purchase these products.
While we do not know the precise costs or profits embedded in many of these products, there is another way to estimate how much of your money goes toward the costs above (and thus how much of your investment is left to work for you). You can simply add up the annual fees over the expected lifetime of the product. For example, if the annual fees are 2.75% and you plan to hold the product for at least 10 years, then you will lose approximately 27.5% (10 x 2.75%) of your original investment to these fees. Just 72.5 cents of each dollar will will be working for you.
The fee example I used above is admittedly on the higher end of the spectrum (but not the highest I have seen!). There are many different types of annuities with varying costs. In general, the fancier products have higher costs and the simpler products have lower costs.
Now that I have made my views clear about annuity fees (beaten the horse to death?), I will now highlight two different annuity products that guarantee lifelong streams of income. The first is a variable annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB). A variable annuity is effectively a retirement vehicle which invests your money in various funds and allows the earnings to grow tax-deferred (though ordinary income tax applies to the returns when they come out).
When one also purchases the GLWB for the annuity, there is a guaranteed minimum level of annual withdrawals (e.g., 5% of the original investment) as long as they are alive. While the minimum level of withdrawal is guaranteed from day one, this minimum level can also increase (but not decrease) through time if the performance of the portfolio reaches certain hurdle rates. In other words, this product can both guarantee a minimum level of income but also allow for some upside if the underlying portfolio performs well.
In addition to the GLWB, there are many other options (called riders) investors can add to their annuity contracts (for additional fees) – enough to make most heads spin. On balance, the wide array of features, riders, payouts, and embedded costs make variable annuities fairly complex. So I am never surprised when I meet people with variable annuity contracts they do not understand.
Now I will discuss an annuity product which is on the opposite side of the complexity spectrum: the single premium immediate annuity (SPIA). This product simply converts a lump sum of cash investment into a guaranteed lifelong stream of income (e.g., 7% of the original investment). When discussing these products, many folks are quick to ask “What if I get hit by a bus the day after I sign the contract?“. Luckily, there are fairly inexpensive options that can add guarantees relating to the minimum number of years of payments or total amount of payout that is guaranteed.
There are some important distinctions between the two products I have discussed. For example, variable annuities are more complex (hence the multiple paragraphs to describe them versus just one for the SPIA). In terms of income, the guaranteed payouts of the variable annuities with GLWB rider are typically lower than for SPIAs. However, variable products provide potential upside to the guaranteed payments. Moreover, they may also leave some money left over for at the end (i.e., for beneficiaries).
On balance, annuities can offer some attractive features such as guaranteed income and tax-deferral. However, investors must weigh these and other benefits against their costs. This is the only way to figure out which of these products (if any) are suitable for their financial plan.
If you would like to learn more about annuities, please contact me or read my longer article that includes more details.
[/accordion]
[/accordions]
This section describes my Structured Investment Income (SII) approach. It is a hybrid of the SWR strategy and annuity products discussed above. This approach targets the primary advantages of both strategies (reliable income, liquidity, and capital growth). However, it also addresses two of their major drawbacks (costs and market dependency). On balance, I believe SII is a much simpler strategy and allows investors to enjoy more peace of mind.
As I highlighted above, very few people have enough money to live off interest and dividends. In other words, they will have to dig into principal. This is precisely what happens with annuities and SWR strategies – even if it is not evident. The constant gravity of fees may be subtle and market volatility may obscure the trend. However, principal erosion is a certainty for those who cannot live off the natural income generated by their portfolio.
So what is my SII approach? The easiest way to understand SII is to consider a hypothetical example. Let us say Jane Retiree is 65 years old and has $2 million in savings. Furthermore, she expects to spend $100,000 a year in retirement. So her current spending budget is 5% of her portfolio (=$100k/$2m), but will likely increase with inflation. Unfortunately, 5% is higher than the 2-3% yields on stocks and bonds. Moreover, it is higher than the 4% ‘rule of thumb’ discussed above. In other words, she cannot live off the dividends and interest. Thus, traditional SWR strategies would run a higher risk of capital depletion.
[accordions]
[accordion title=”Example: Jane Retiree”]
So let us consider changing the SWR approach. We could replace the bond allocation with a SPIA (single premium immediate annuity). Please see the ‘Annuities’ section above for more information). In practice, we generally do not purchase a SPIA. We often purchase a series of CDs and bonds first. This creates a stream of fixed cash flows going out, say, 10-15 years. Then we would purchased a deferred income annuity (DIA) that would start paying when these CDs and bonds left off. The CDs, bonds, and DIA would create a level stream of payments continuing for as long as she lives. So this would effectively create the same income stream as a SPIA. However, it would also maintain more liquidity via access to the CDs and bonds.
At Jane’s age, a SPIA might payout around 7% per year. If half of her $2m portfolio was allocated to SPIAs, this would generate $70,000 of income per year. Then the other half could be in stocks paying a current dividend yield of, say, 3%. This provides another $30,000 per year in dividends (which should grow at a rate higher than inflation). Et voila! Jane now has a portfolio that generates sufficient income for her retirement needs ($100,000). Moreover, it should grow over time and help address inflation risk.
If Jane had to chisel away from her portfolio, then she would be at the mercy of the market. However, Jane’s income is now naturally generated via fixed income and dividends. It is important to understand that dividends are far volatile than market prices and there are many companies who have paid and increased dividends for many years – even through the last two recessions and market collapses.
With a strategy like this, Jane does not need to worry as much about stock market volatility. Moreover, there is little to no need to manage the portfolio. So she may not need an advisor to manage her portfolio once this is set up. As a result, this can translate into significant savings. For example, consider an ongoing advisor fee of 1% per year. That would consume approximately 20% of her retirement income (1% x $2m = $20,000 out of her $100,000 of income).
[/accordion]
[/accordions]
As the above example illustrates, the SII approach is remarkably simple. It can produce a reliable source of income (dividends and guaranteed SPIA payments) with reduced dependency on market performance. It can also eliminate many of the annual fees and taxes associated with the bond allocation. This is particularly relevant when comparing to a variable annuity or SWR strategy. However, SII has other benefits we have not yet discussed. SII can help minimize tax friction and maximize performance. This can translate into more income or residual wealth for legacy purposes (e.g., heirs or charities).
There are three ways SII can help minimize taxes. The first way is that it involves significantly less, if any, portfolio rebalancing. Thus, it should trigger fewer capitals gains. Second, the investor effectively consumes the fixed income side of the portfolio throughout retirement (but is guaranteed not to run out!). So much of the income is actually principal and thus not taxable. Moreover, this also means that the fixed income allocation decreases through time. This is good because fixed income is generally less tax-inefficient given that ordinary income tax applies to the interest. The third tax benefit of SII stems from the use of the fixed annuity. These products defer all of the taxes until the owner starts to receive income.
Our calculations indicate these tax benefits can save many retirees the better part of 1% per year. To put this into context, consider tax savings of 0.50% per year versus a 5% withdrawal rate. This amounts to a 10% boost to retirement income via tax savings alone (10% = 0.50% / 5%).
SII also offers potential performance advantages. These stem from the different ways one has to manage (or not manage) the portfolio. Most other strategies rebalance and maintain fixed asset allocations (e.g., 60%/40%). They generally have to do this because their income stream is dependent on market performance. Specifically, they must keep a lid on overall volatility. Otherwise, they would risk opening the door to wealth depletion and income impairment.
Unfortunately, this rebalancing process can limit overall portfolio performance as it systematically constrains the higher growth asset (e.g., stocks). Each time stocks outpace the other investments, the SWR strategy trims the equity allocation. Then the proceeds are redistributed to other parts of the portfolio (presumably triggering taxes as well). In the words of famed investor Peter Lynch, this process is akin to “trimming your flowers and watering your weeds.”
There is another advantage to using the fixed income side of the portfolio to secure enough income via the SPIA. It leaves the equity side of the portfolio alone to grow without constraint. In terms of risk management, this transfers risk away from the retiree’s income stream and to the retiree’s beneficiaries. This is a much better alignment as equity risk then resides with their presumably longer time horizons. Of course, a retiree may wish to take advantage of the equity growth within their lifetime. In that case, they could sell some of their equity allocation along the way. However, this would not done in such a way to systematically constrain growth and trigger taxes.
The bottom line: The above description and example brush some details under the rug (e.g., inflation). The overall approach of marrying an income annuity to a stream of dividends offers many potential benefits. First, it is both simple and efficient means to generate a robust and growing stream of income. I find SII offers the best balance of income, risk, cost, tax, and performance. As a result, I believe this approach to income produces can provide significantly more peace of mind in retirement.
Source: Aaron Brask Capital