Retirement Income Planning: The Total Return Approach Vs. the Bucket Approach
Presented by John B. Steiger
Most working Americans have only one source of steady income before they retire: their jobs. When you retire, however, your income will likely come from a number of sources, such as retirement accounts, social security benefits, pensions, and part-time work. When deciding how to manage your various assets (whether personally or with the help of a professional wealth manager) to ensure a steady retirement income stream, there are two main strategies to consider: the total return approach and the investment pool-or bucket-approach.
The total return approach
With a total return approach, you invest your assets in a diversified portfolio of investments with varying potential for growth, stability, and liquidity. The percentage you allot to each type of investment depends on your asset allocation plan, time horizon, risk tolerance, need for income, and other goals.
The objectives of your investment portfolio generally change over time, depending on how close you are to retirement:
Accumulation phase. During the accumulation phase, your portfolio’s objective is to increase in value as much as possible, with a focus on investments with growth potential.
Approaching retirement-age phase. As you near retirement, your portfolio becomes more conservative, moving toward more stable and liquid assets in order to help preserve your earnings.
Retirement phase. Once you retire, the idea is to withdraw from your portfolio at an even rate that allows you to enjoy a sustainable lifestyle.
Traditionally, the widely quoted withdrawal rate for the first year of retirement is 4 percent. Ideally, that 4 percent should be equal to the amount left over after you subtract your yearly retirement income (e.g., pensions, social security, and so on) from your total cost of living, including investment management fees. Each year, you will most likely increase your withdrawal percentage to keep up with inflation. Keep in mind, however, that the appropriate withdrawal rate for you will depend on your personal situation as well as the current economic environment.
The bucket approach
The bucket approach also begins with a diversified portfolio, following the total return approach throughout most of the accumulation period. Then, as retirement approaches, you divide your assets into several smaller portfolios (or buckets), each with different time horizons, to target specific needs.
There is no “right” number of buckets, but they are fairly common. In a three-bucket scenario:
The first bucket would cover the three years leading up to retirement and the two years following retirement, providing income for near-term spending. It would likely include investments that have historically been relatively stable, such as short-term bonds, CDs, money market funds, and cash.
The second bucket would be used in years three through nine of retirement. Designed to preserve some capital while generating retirement income, it would include more assets with growth potential, such as certain mutual funds and dividend-paying stocks.
The third bucket, designated to provide income in year 10 and beyond, would contain investments that have the most potential for growth, such as equities, commodities, real estate, and alternatives. Although the risk profile of this bucket is typically higher than the other two, its longer time horizon can help provide a buffer for short-term volatility.
As you enter the distribution phase, you draw from these buckets sequentially, using a withdrawal rate based on your specific lifestyle goals in a particular year.
The big picture
Many people are familiar with the total return approach, but the bucket approach has been gaining popularity recently, thanks in large part to its simplicity. It also accounts for different time periods during retirement, potentially allowing you to allocate money more effectively based on your personal situation.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of the bucket approach is that it can help provide a buffer during times of market volatility. For example, if the value of the investments in buckets two and three suddenly fluctuates due to market conditions, your immediate cash income is coming from bucket one, which is likely to be less volatile. This may also alleviate the need to sell investments that have lost money in order to generate retirement income.
Of course, while the bucket approach has its advantages, some investors simply feel more comfortable using the total return approach. Remember, the best strategy for your retirement is unique to you and your personal preferences and needs. However you choose to pursue your retirement dreams, it’s important to work with a financial professional who can help you create the most appropriate strategy based on your goals and situation.
Contact us today to learn more about the different paths you may take to pursue a sustainable and enjoyable retirement.
Diversification does not assure against market loss, and there is no guarantee that a diversified portfolio will outperform a non-diversified portfolio.
###
John B. Steiger is a financial consultant located at (460 Totten Pond Road Suite 600 Waltham, MA 02451. He offers securities as a Registered Representative of Commonwealth Financial Network , Member FINRA/SIPC. He can be reached at 781-547-5621 or at john@financialconnector.com.
2013 Commonwealth Financial Network
At Cleary, we are committed to a holistic approach of protecting and preserving our clients’ financial assets. Give us a call today at 617-723-0700 and let us know how we can help you.
Terrorism Insurance
Before the 9/11 attacks, insurers didn’t charge for terrorism insurance, but now reinsurers believe they cannot price the risk. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), enacted a year after the 9/11 attacks, makes the Federal Government the backstop for private insurance companies in the event of such catastrophes. A terrorist act that is eligible for coverage under TRIA must be certified by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Since TRIA’s passage, the private industry’s willingness and ability to cover terrorism risk have increased. According to industry surveys, prices for terrorism coverage have generally trended downward, and approximately 60% of commercial policyholders have purchased coverage over the past few years.
Each time a business renews its commercial insurance policy, terrorism coverage is offered. Policyholders have the option to elect the coverage or decline the coverage. (Workers Compensation policies automatically include terrorism; you can’t opt out of it!) Prior to the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombings only about 50% of Mike Regan’s commercial property clients actually purchased terrorism insurance. Whether or not the bombings are deemed a “terrorist” act could have enormous financial implications for the businesses that suffered damages or closed during the police investigation.
It may seem obvious to many that the bombing was an act of terrorism, but whether it is certified as such means a great deal to the property owners affected by it. Think of this; a bomb damaging your building is not an excluded peril from “Special” (used to be called All Risk) property coverage’s. You would be covered even if you didn’t purchase terrorism coverage. However, if it becomes a “certified” act of terror and you did not purchase the terrorism coverage you will not be covered! Multiple property claims from the bombing are in limbo until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury does or does not certify the event.
Mike Regan was recently quoted in a Boston Business Journal article titled “State of Exposure”. The article discussed the resurgence of terrorism coverage in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. “It’s definitely opened people’s eyes to having it”. “After 9/11 it was a big item. But, like most things, over time people tend not to think about it the same way and then some people stopped asking what it is, what it means, whether events are covered or not. Now they’re starting to ask that again.”
At Cleary, we will evaluate your business exposures and work with you to develop a comprehensive plan to safeguard your business. Give us a call today at 617-723-0700.
Workers Compensation Audit Issues – Sole Proprietor
The Massachusetts Workers Compensation Rating & Inspection Bureau has updated audit guidelines related to the hiring of sole proprietors and/or partnerships. These guidelines will have a greater impact on the construction field, but will impact other industries as well.
It is critical that businesses obtain Certificates of Insurance from contractors or firms hired to work on their behalf. If a hired subcontractor does not carry Workers Compensation coverage, then an injured employee of that subcontractor would collect on your coverage. For this reason auditors will ask about contractors, 1099’s and subcontractors you have hired and request to see the Certificates of Insurance which you have collected. The labor cost you paid to any uninsured parties will be added as payroll to your audit and generate additional premiums.
The Bureau has also clarified the audit guideline regarding the use of subcontracted sole proprietorships or partnerships. Sole proprietors and partners are not required to carry Workers Compensation coverage if they do not have any other employees. They can elect to obtain coverage on themselves, but are not legally required to do so. They are legally required to purchase the coverage if they have any employees, even if the workers are part-time. A Certificate of Insurance provided by a Sole Proprietor / Partnership that has Workers Compensation but has not elected coverage for the owners will be noted as such. The Bureau’s new guidelines stipulate that the auditors will pick up the payroll for the “uninsured” sole proprietor / partner if the Certificate states that they are excluded from coverage. Exceptions to this rule can be found in the following three-part test:
The individual/partner is free from control and direction in connection to performance of the service, both under his/her contract for the performance of service and in fact; and
The service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and
The individual/partner is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.
Here is an example of how the rule would apply:
John Smith Carpentry, Inc. hires Stanley Jones dba Stanley Jones Plumbing to perform work on three projects over the course of the year. Stanley does not have employees at the time of the work but does have a Workers Compensation policy in case he needs a worker for larger projects. Stanley has elected to be excluded on his Workers Compensation policy. Stanley provides a Certificate of Insurance to John Smith Carpentry that shows Workers Compensation is in place but that he is excluded on the policy.
John Smith is insured with Boston Harbor Mutual. The auditor has requested copies of all insurance certificates for subcontractors hired during the year. A review of the Stanley Jones certificate shows that the sole proprietor is not insured. Boston Harbor Mutual’s auditor adds the payroll cost of the three projects to John Smith’s premium. John smith is unable to provide sufficient evidence relative to the “three-part test” to Boston Harbor Mutual that would reverse the charge. John Smith now must pay additional Workers Compensation premium.
It is important for businesses to be aware of this issue. The issue is more common with construction operations but is certainly applicable to any business that hires other businesses to provide a service or operation on their behalf, such as an insurance agency hiring an individual to clean the office. Be aware of these issues before you hire the business or individual so you can understand what insurance is in place and the potential cost in the future if their coverage is not sufficient or is in question.
At Cleary, we will evaluate your business exposures and work with you to develop a comprehensive plan to safeguard your business. Give us a call today at 617-723-0700.