Here’s why advisors may urge retirees to load up on equities

johnN

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/12/heres-why-advisors-may-urge-retirees-to-load-up-on-equities.html

Here’s why advisors may urge retirees to load up on equities

Key Points

With guaranteed income — pension, Social Security or income annuities — your client might have enough safety to step up his stock allocation in retirement, said Michael Finke, professor of wealth management at The American College.
Consider guaranteed income sources as being similar as bonds, Finke said. That means you can increase your stock allocation elsewhere.

msf

I generally agree with this article (about counting annuities as part of the "safe" portion of your portfolio allocation). It does gloss over a couple of points that merit further thought.

One is how to reduce to present value, i.e. how does one calculate the present value of an income stream in order to know how much one has in "safe" investments? It suggests using the commercial rate for an immediate annuity today that would be comparable to one's pension (if one is lucky enough to have one).

This approach could also be applied to an annuity that one annuitied some time in the past. One might have paid $100K for an immediate annuity in 2014, while that same annuity might cost only $70K today. In part because one has fewer years of life left, but also in part because interest rates have risen slightly. In that sense, an income stream is very much like a bond portfolio - its day to day mark to market value fluctuates.

Notice also that the value of social security isn't discounted to present value. That's because it is inflation adjusted. The value of $20K/year in 2020 is the same as the value of $20K/year in 2030. No need to discount. In the article, it appears that the writer assumed a 22 year life expectancy; $20K x 22 years = $440K shown for Client B.

The other point to think about is why own bonds at all, if your guaranteed income stream (pension, annuities) is large enough to cover essential expenses. The article suggests that the reason is to let people sleep at night ("risk tolerance").

This consideration is real but emotional (since by hypothesis the risk is minimal). If people have trouble addressing this, they will also likely continue ignoring the present value of their income stream for asset allocation. Because all one sees on one's monthly brokerage statements are the assets in the portfolio.

Of course any form of insurance (social security, pensions, annuities) has a cost (overhead). This cost can be reclaimed via the flexibility to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. Similarly, keeping a cash reserve (see thread on how much cash to keep in retirement) allows one to be more aggressive with the remaining assets.

hank

Thanks @msf for your (typically) well reasoned and precisely detailed analysis. I’d preface my comments by saying things always look rosier late in a decade-long bull market cycle in equities. I’m confident that if this bull lasts another 3 or 4 years the than prevailing “expert” advice will be to pile 100% into aggressive equity funds because fixed income is tantamount to rubbish.

- Easy to overlook is investor risk tolerance. No matter what one’s rationale may be for “loading up” on equities, there’s nothing like a 40-50% drubbing over a couple miserable years to bring us to our knees and shock us back to our Puritan sensibilities. In too many cases those equities piled into during sunnier days get unloaded by investors at discounted prices late in the bear cycle.

- Also overlooked by the article’s underlying assumption is that although investors might well possess a pension, SS, or annuity assets that would allow some level of subsistence, their portfolio of equities, bonds, etc. is not without some immediate purpose. In many cases (speaking from personal experience) those assets are withdrawn regularly for major expenses like travel, new vehicles and upgrades / maintenance on their principal dwelling. It’s also an emergency fund for unexpected medical costs and provides needed “insurance” against having the carpet pulled out from underneath by a reduction in SS or pension benefits (though the assumption is these benefits will remain intact).

- Further, the invested portfolio provides needed growth to compensate for inflation - arguably better than those (somewhat fixed) pension, annuity, SS benefits can. Point being: Treat those invested assets with the same care & due diligence you would if you had none of those added “insurance” products.

The article seems related to an argument advanced by John Bogle around 2013 when he said investors should treat SS as a “bond” in their allocation decisions. It was part of a wider ranging interview, so I’m posting only one commentary from a secondary source. (But the actual full interview is linked within the commentary). I’m also posting a lengthy mfo discussion from around the same time in which a number of members from various tiers shared their (somewhat divergent) thoughts on the question.

Bogle’s position: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-save-for-retirement-vanguard-john-bogle-2017-1

MFO discussion (September 2013) : https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7814/count-social-security-as-part-of-portfolio