• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Philosophy
    • Choosing a Financial Planner
    • Legal and Regulatory
    • Team
    • Careers
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Contact Us
  • Our Services
    • Financial Planning
    • Ongoing Financial Guidance
    • Portfolio Management
  • Financial Planning Basics
    • Retirement Planning and Cash Flow
    • Social Security
    • Taxes
    • Insurance & Risk Management
    • Investments
    • 401(k)
    • Real Estate
    • College
    • Liquidity
    • Divorce
    • Estate Planning
    • Sensible Updates
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Webinars
    • Videos
    • Financial Planning Guidebook
    • Continuing Care Retirement Communities Guidebook
    • Primers
    • Financial Planning Links
    • Client Login
  • Contact Us
Sensible Financial Planning

Sensible Financial Planning

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
Client Login

Call Us Today
781-642-0890

Where Would My Savings Have Lasted Longest From 2000-2019?

by
Rick Miller
Ph.D., CFP® - Founder

August 13, 2020

The picture shows a microscope focused on a slide.
Photo by Michael Longmire on Unsplash

In my sixth in a series of articles delving into investing in the first two decades of this century, I explore how well a retirement savings portfolio would have held up.  

This article originally appeared in Forbes.com.

So far, we’ve looked at US stocks and bonds, international and emerging market stocks, factor investing, hedged international bonds, and retirement income. We’ve seen that returns for every one of the investment categories have been varied, and that conventional wisdom doesn’t always work. We’ve also seen that changing your investment strategy based on the recent past is often precisely the wrong thing to do. 

In our last article we looked at how savings accumulated. In this one, we’re going to look at withdrawals from a nest egg. Just as with savings, the impact of investment returns on our retirement portfolio as we withdraw from it can be surprising. Just as with savings, what seems at first blush to be obvious turns out not to be true. Just because one asset has larger average returns than another doesn’t mean investing retirement savings in that asset is the best move.  

Rate of return 2000-2019.

Higher average returns don’t guarantee better retirement outcomes  

The table lists twelve asset classes and asset class combinations (from now on, portfolios) I referred to in earlier articles. For each one, the first column provides the two-decade total rate of return and the second the average rate of return — the annual rate that if applied each year would produce the two-decade total return. For example, the Russell 3000 Growth Index (fifth row) returned 80.3% after inflation from 2000-2019, which averages out to 3% per year (3% times 20 years is only 60% – the “magic of compound interest” provides the additional 20.3%). I have sorted the portfolios by real returns, from smallest to largest. The ranking is the same for both total and annual average returns. 

Very importantly, I’m using these portfolios only as examples of return histories in this note. I’m not drawing investment implications or making recommendations. 

Suppose we started with $1,000,000 and withdrew $40,000 on January 1st every year from 2000 to 2019 (applying the so-called “4% Rule”). What would be the present value of the distributions and the ending balance for each portfolio if we’d earned its average rate? We use Treasury Bills as our “savings account interest rate” (see Present Value box below).  

Present value definition

The third column provides the answer, in millions of dollars: from $.97M for Treasury Bills to $1.34M for the Russell 2000 (smaller company US stocks). Portfolios rank in the same order by average returns and by the present value of cash flows plus ending balance with average returns. 

On the other hand, suppose we received the returns as they happened each year (the “Observed” returns, shown in the fourth column). The rankings are very different! In particular, drawing from our hypothetical nest egg invested in the Russell 3000 Growth Index (an index of US Growth stocks — see this article) would have caused us to run out of money in 2014 (analysis not shown) – and we’d have put in $1M to buy a stream of cash flows worth only $540,000. What a waste!  

That’s the worst present value of any portfolio, even our “savings account” Treasury Bills. How is that possible? 

When withdrawing from your nest egg, timing matters.

The order of returns is as critical when we withdraw from our savings as when we add to it 

Just as we saw with savings, the order in which returns arrive matters if we are withdrawing from our nest egg. The table above illustrates.  

Suppose we have two years of withdrawals of $4 from our $100 nest egg. 

The top panel (blue shading) shows what happens with a 100% return (doubling our investment) in the first year and a -50% return (halving our investment) in the second. Our nest egg withdrawal strategy nets us $94. 

If we reverse the order of returns (second panel, orange shading), with the -50% return in the first year and the 100% return in the second, we end up with $88. Just as with saving, the order of returns matters when we withdraw from our nest egg. When the gain (100%) arrives earlier, it applies to more assets, and thus produces a better result. This is the reverse of what we saw with savings, when larger returns arriving later produced larger results. 

Whether we’re adding to or taking away from our portfolios, we gain more when large balances garner large returns and lose less when poor returns apply to small balances. When we are withdrawing, larger balances tend to be earlier in the cash flow series. Larger balances tend to be later in the series when we are saving. 

The differences between observed and average returns in the aughts and the teens.

Let’s see the impact of different orders of returns on nest egg withdrawals over the last two decades. The first column in the final table ranks our asset classes from lowest to highest difference between average annual investment return in the teens (2010-2019) and the aughts (2000-2009). This tells us which asset classes or groups had the biggest changes in returns from the aughts to the teens. US Aggregate Bond had 1.8% per year lower returns in the teens than in the aughts — returns declined. Russell 3000 Growth had 19.2% (13% vs -6.2%) per year higher returns each year in the teens than in the aughts – returns grew. 

The ranking is very similar in the second column. That column reports the present value difference in our series of distributions and final balances between observed returns and average returns. The Russell 3000 Growth index is highest on both measures. Higher returns later would have produced much worse ($1.04M worse) results than its average returns suggest, while US Aggregate Bond has lower later returns and better observed results relative to its average returns. Higher later returns tend to be related to observed returns distribution results being lower than average returns results. Even the Emerging Markets index (MSCI Emerging), which appears to be out of order, is aligned with the order of returns explanation — within each decade positive or high returns follow negative or low returns (these details not shown in the table). 

I drew the third column from the previous article about savings. It is almost exactly the negative of the second column. That is, the sequences of returns that are relatively worst for withdrawals relative to their average are relatively best for savings, and vice versa! (The difference for Russell 3000 Growth is due to the nest egg being exhausted by the withdrawal series before 2019.) 

Just as with savings, average returns tell us little about the nest egg distribution results we will experience over an extended time if we are regularly withdrawing. Excellent average returns may produce poor results if early returns were small and later returns were large. Lower average returns may not accurately represent your experience if the early years offered large positive returns even if later years were poor. 

Just as we saw with savings, knowing not only the annual average but also every year’s returns is important. But it still won’t help you choose investments to help you preserve your nest egg because future returns are unpredictable. However, we can say that one bad year of returns early in your retirement can mean that you exhaust your nest egg prematurely. Your portfolio is largest just as you retire, and larger portfolios suffer larger dollar losses for any given percentage decline. 

Moreover, choosing an investment strategy based on average historic returns can be a mistake on two counts. The past offers no guarantees for the future, and average returns are an incomplete guide to how a distribution plan would have performed – the order of returns matters a lot, too. 

More articles by Rick Miller Filed Under: Investments Tagged With: Forbes.com, Investment Strategy

Primary Sidebar

Sign up for our newsletter

Recent Posts

The picture is of a lock on a keyboard to represent social engineering, spoofing, and hacking.

Cybersecurity: Social Engineering

Types of social engineering like spoofing and hacking involve researching and even contacting the target. What should you look for?

The picture shows the hands of a person using a calculator to represent figuring taxes and deductions.

Charitable Giving (part 4): Donate Using DAFs

Charitable giving can reduce taxes. If you use Donor Advised Funds, you can often increase tax savings and donate to your favorite charity.

Categories

  • Cybersecurity
  • Estate Planning
  • Financial Planning Basics
  • Financial Planning Videos
  • Insurance & Risk Management
  • Investments
  • Retirement Planning and Cash Flow
  • Sensible Updates
  • Taxes

Topics

Annuities bond returns Bonds Charitable Giving College Planning Company Updates Credit Health Disability Insurance diversification Divorce Donor Advised Funds Economy estate planning Federal Reserve Financial Goals Financial IQ financial planning Financial Strategy Forbes.com housing inflation Investments Investment Strategy IRA Legislation Lifetime Balance Sheet Liquidity Long-Term Care Medicare Mortgage Older Adult Living Recommended Books remote work Retirement Choices retirement planning Retirement Savings Risk Management Securities Social Security Social Security benefits Staff News Stock Market Stocks sustainable portfolios taxes

authors

Rick Miller
Sensible Staff
Frank Napolitano
Rick Fine
Josh Trubow
Chris Andrysiak
Marie St. Clare
Laura Williams
Chuck Luce

Footer

Services

  • Financial Planning
  • Financial Guidance
  • Portfolio Management

About Us

  • Our Philosophy
  • Team

Resources

  • Blog
  • Financial Planning Guidebook
Sign up for our Newsletter
Awards & Recognition

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Locations

Massachusetts

203 Crescent Street, Suite 404

Waltham, MA 02453

Phone: (781) 642-0890
Fax: (781) 810-4830

 

California

600 B Street, Suite 300

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 573-4131​

Disclaimer

This content reflects the opinions of Sensible Financial®. We may change it at any time without notice. We provide this content for informational purposes only. Although we endeavor to keep the information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability for a particular purpose or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. We do not intend the information contained in this website as investment advice and we do not recommend that you buy or sell any security. We do not guarantee that our statements, opinions or forecasts will prove to be correct. Past performance does not guarantee future results. You cannot invest directly in any index. If you attempt to mimic the performance of an index, you will incur fees and expenses which will reduce returns. All investing involves risk. You can lose any money you invest. There is no guarantee that any investment plan or strategy will succeed.

More important additional information and full disclaimer.

Copyright © 2023 Sensible Financial · All Rights Are Reserved
Legal Disclosure