COLLEGE PLANNING | ESTATE PLANNING | INSURANCE | INVESTING | PORTFOLIO SPOTLIGHT | REAL ESTATE | RETIREMENT | TAX PLANNING
The 4 % Rule : ‘ Neat , Plausible And Wrong ’
The rule just doesn ’ t jibe with the personal approach clients want .
By Paul R . Samuelson
THE PERSISTENT — AND FUTILE — DEbate over the 4 % rule for retirement income brings to mind the observation of the American social critic H . L . Mencken :
“ There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat , plausible and wrong ,” he wrote in 1920 .
Retirement wasn ’ t on Mencken ’ s mind ( the average life expectancy in 1920 was around 54 ). But I imagine he might have anticipated the 4 % rule — or perhaps the zombie economic theory that tax cuts pay for themselves . Both are neat , plausible and not obviously wrong .
The 4 % rule works as a back-of-the-napkin analysis of how much an investor or couple can withdraw annually to stretch their savings to last about 30 years . Clients want to know how to transform their accumulated savings into a retirement income stream . But the 4 % rule fails to fit with the nuanced , personalized , tax-aware and technology-informed approach you want to take with those clients .
When 4 % Works — And ( More Often ) When It Doesn ’ t
The 4 % rule suggests that people retiring between the ages of 60 and 65 can withdraw 4 % of their accumulated savings ( invested 50 % in stocks and 50 % in bonds ) to pay expenses in year one . Each year after , they can withdraw the same amount plus a cost-of-living adjustment based on the inflation rate .
I can think of one type of case that supports a “ withdrawal rule ”: when it ’ s a single retired person with safe investments and consistent Social Security , pension or annuity payments . A withdrawal level could be assigned based on the rate available from a single-payment income annuity with the cost-ofliving adjustment .
But the case for a constant withdrawal level falls apart when it comes to married couples . At some point , one spouse will die , while the other will be widowed . Suddenly , the survivor will receive smaller payments from Social Security or perhaps pensions . This won ’ t necessarily be the partner with fewer health concerns or superior financial skills . Later , widowed partners will face higher tax rates because their deductions and tax brackets are sliced in half after they file as a single person . They may also need to contend with the still-emerging rules on required minimum distributions ( RMDs ).
This means married couples should likely be reducing their
50 | FINANCIAL ADVISOR MAGAZINE | JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2024 WWW . FA-MAG . COM