Give a Gift

Making Your Money Last

Ready Your Nest Egg for the Worst Case

Testing your portfolio for a 'black swan' market event could up the chances your nest egg will last a lifetime.

By Susan B. Garland, Editor, Kiplinger's Retirement Report

May 3, 2010
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was originally published in the February 2010 issue of Kiplinger's Retirement Report. To subscribe, click here.

As many of you already learned, retiring as the market moves into bear territory is a case of terrible timing. It's tough to recoup losses that occur in the first years of retirement or in the years leading up to it. Would you have planned differently if you knew a severe recession was imminent?

Related Links


Moshe Milevsky, associate professor of finance at York University in Toronto, believes financial advisers should test whether a client's portfolio can withstand a market event that has a 1% chance of occurring. In a Journal of Financial Planning article, Milevsky calls these market events "black swan" scenarios, a term applied to rare, often devastating, episodes, and explained by Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.

An adviser who finds that a client's portfolio is particularly vulnerable to a worst-case scenario could perhaps advise the investor to reduce spending or buy an annuity that locks in guaranteed income, Milevsky says. Without changes, the investor would have little hope of having enough income to last a lifetime.

He compares a "retirement-income sustainability" test to car insurance. "It enables you to plan well and reduce your exposure to risk," he told Kiplinger's.

Gambling With Monte Carlo

Many financial advisers use a computer to run Monte Carlo simulations to determine the odds that a client's portfolio will last through retirement. Based on an investor's age, income, asset mix and contributions, the software puts the portfolio through hundreds of thousands of "what if" market-condition scenarios. A portfolio's success rate is based on the percentage of cases when an income and spending target is met.

But there are shortcomings. A typical Monte Carlo simulation may predict, for instance, ten loss years out of 70, but it won't put several of those loss years together. Nor does it usually test for when loss years occur at certain times, such as early in retirement.

Milevsky says many planners already can conduct stress tests. For those who need help, he developed software to test for 1-in-100 market events.

To illustrate how such a stress test would work, Milevsky describes two hypothetical investors. In November 2007, at the start of the bear market, Robert, 62, and Sandra, 78, met with their financial planners. Robert had a portfolio of $950,000, with 90% allocated to stocks. He planned to spend $37,116 a year. Meanwhile, Sandra had $330,000 of investment assets, from which she intended to spend $25,777 a year. Only 25% of her portfolio was allocated to stocks.

Using Monte Carlo simulations, both investors had an 80% chance of having enough money to last their lifetimes. Fast-forward two years -- a period that included the bear market. The 80% sustainability rate for both portfolios plunged.

If the advisers had instead run two different tests in November 2007, they would have been better able to help their clients avert much financial harm, Milevsky says. First, planners would have conducted the standard Monte Carlo. The second test would have assumed that three years had passed and that both portfolios had undergone a 1-in-100 market event. Advisers would have found that Robert's portfolio had a 29.6% chance of lasting through retirement, compared with 53.7% for Sandra's nest egg.

Then, Milevsky would have had the advisers determine what he calls the Sequence of Returns Downside Exposure ratio, or Sordex. In layperson's terms, the higher the ratio, the more risk an investor faces.

Thomas Cochrane, founder of AnnuityDigest, believes that such a test would be right for people who have $1 million to $3 million of investment assets. Cochrane says if a black-swan analysis raises concerns, it would "trigger a conversation" between adviser and client. "If someone is still working, maybe he can increase savings," he says. "If someone is retired, he can dial down spending. You can change asset allocation. Hedging with insurance products is certainly a discussion point."

For more authoritative guidance on retirement investing, slashing taxes and getting the best health care, click here for a FREE sample issue of Kiplinger’s Retirement Report.



DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (5)

Posted by: Limoman at 04/28/2010 10:23:02 AM

Ditto Susan on the Black Swan or just being Conservative works too! I was taught by my Limo clients ( in the Financial District of Wall Street).. 1. After you (and/or your FA ) decide on a Portofolio? But before you go Putting your $ into it.. 2. Go back and look up as many of the Back Bear market yrs that Port. would have been in and gone thru . 3. Use your Actual Dollars you would have in it and go thru the process of Seeing Actual Dollars you would have Lost, not just those apy- %-percentages either..so you can relate how it was loosing say $50,000 per your $150,000 port and you're making $50k yr.. How it feel loosing a Whole yrs Income per your Salary? Not lost lost -20-30% either.. 4. Ben Graham said it best.. Preservation of Principal is the key.. but remember, this was AFTEr He learned the hard way and LOST over 66% of his $.. ie; Learn from His Mistakes.. for the AVE JOE investor? I don't think we have any business Deciding on How and where to invest our $.. Should just own what Wall Street, FA's and AMgrs Hate? And that is Balanced Funds.. 50/50 in the entry level one's like Vanguards VWELX and VWINX Or for the Advanced of Funds like FPACX, OAKBX, PRWCX and others like it For the Conservatives adn 3 yrs BEFORE Retiring? I found just owning the more Conservative Balanced Funds like VWINX, BERIX and FISCX ( or any like them in the less than 30% in equities) proved to be the Best bet.. And these funds are just an example..Do your own reserach cking out for others.. LESS IS MORE: Using M* charts.. Just owning A port of 3 Balanced Funds for Growth like FPACX, OAKBX and PRWCX and the same 3 Fund Port for Retirement like VWINX, BERIX and FISICX and you would have done just fine these past 10 yrs (and since 1995 since most of those funds started comming out..) VWINX & VWELX are the Oldest...But Vanguard doesn't want to talk about them, they want to hype all their other funds, they make More $ on Fees and Expenses on.. 90% of Us "InWestors" have no business trying to Invest and manage our own $.. It takes a Pro' to Beat a Pro' and unless you want to devote the yrs it takes to learn and Then devote the ave of 50 hrs a week , like the Pro's do? Don't even try.. And Indexing isn't the Answer either.. Not if you have to manage it yourself.. You Are your Worst Enemy , investing Your $.. and Wall Street Counts on that and that's why they try to get you to do it.. take all this with a Grain of salt, comming from an Old -Early Retired Limoman..that did nothing but serve these Pro's for over 30 yrs..and saw and heard how they REALLY work.. and watch and listen to Mark Hanes in the Mornings on CNBC..and catch his Comments and read btwn the lines from him..He's about the Closest to a Non -Biased person CNBC and Wall Street has..I just wish they would hire More Guys like him ..but they would probably loose Big Advertising $ from Wall Street if they did.. Thanks Again, Susan for the Good Article.. But I'l bet it falls on deaf ears while we have a Bull market.. Instead of Remembering 08' and the 1st qtr of 09', let alone the Big Loss Bear market of 00-early 03'... and things such as "Remember the Alamo, Remember Pearl Harbor and Remember 9/11 & The Twin Towers..." And isn't it 'fun' to watch the Bankers cover their Butts & justifying everything from being Prosecuted as they should be? And where are the Federal Gov't Leaders who supported the Banks during those yrs ? Why aren't they being required to Testify? and good for you on attacking the Monte Carlo system...Paul Merriman posted a Chart dating back to 1970 -2008 showing how the difference Btwn a 50/50 port vs a 70/30 port did 0.3% less than the 70/30 port.. It would take about 240 yrs to double your $, 120 yrs to make 50% more and 60 yrs to make 25% more owning that 70/30 and Only IF you didn't Panic along the way.. As so has several of your collegues have said over the yrs, "A 50/50 Portfolio is all most need"...and not more than 25% in equities for Retiree's...Thank you Susan...;-)

Posted by: Jeff at 05/03/2010 12:42:52 AM

... What the heck is this guy talking about?

Posted by: Cathy at 05/04/2010 04:13:10 PM

Thanks Limoman. Your help is greatly appreciated. Cathy G.

Posted by: Bob at 05/04/2010 07:59:38 PM

How much income can Robert and Sandra expect from social security during the rest of their lives? Why (did)Robert...have 90% in stocks at 62 unless he is still planning to work for quite a few more years? In 2007 at 4% on CDs he would never run out of money. What was that 80% probability based on? What sort of ridiculously long life span did the program use. I need a lot more information about the assumptions this Monte Carlo program uses. Where does this 1 in a 100 come from? The Great Depression was only 70-80 years ago and lasted 10+ years. I have used many computer models and one thing is always apparent, you can always make a model that fits your preconceived theories. From what was given here, this program is useless at best. Even buying gold beats this.

Posted by: MikeS at 08/05/2010 05:33:13 PM

A good way to protect your equity portfolio if you think a downdraft in the market is coming is to sell covered calls against some or all of your stock. Even if you don't think the market is going down, you are probably leaving money on the table each month by not selling out-of-the-money calls against the stocks you own. You may not get much each month but if you do it 12x per year then it adds up (you could get an extra 6%/year from stocks you already own). MikeS, Born To Sell




Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

Featured Videos From Kiplinger




facebook
twitter
RSS